Nativism and Immigration Restriction - Essay Example

Nativism and Immigration Restriction Introduction Immigration continued to weave the tapestry of America forover 300 years after the Mayflower brought the first European settlers to America's shores. The new country needed new inhabitants, skilled labor, workers, and new ideas. Immigration was encouraged and the country maintained an open door policy to people from all over the world. By the early 19th century, California was welcoming Chinese immigrants while the Eastern US saw an escalation in Europeans seeking a new life, livelihood, and personal freedom. These immigrants helped build the railroads, work the mines, and provided the labor to form the great melting pot that became America. However, the year 1882 would become a turning point in our nation's history with the passage of the federal Chinese Exclusion Act that prohibited immigration based on race and ethnicity. The next four decades would continue to affect the country's perception of immigration and would culminate with the passage of the National Origins Act in 1924. Our national views and policies towards immigration continue to be shaped by the nationalism, fears, and nativism that were spawned in California over a century ago. 2.) Discussion By the middle of the 19th century the residents of California were openly expressing their resistance to Chinese immigrants and these feelings were being exhibited through worker demonstrations and violent outrages. Advocates of the open door policy clashed with anti-immigrant forces over immigration policy for one of the first times in our nation's history. The working men in California had begun to believe that the immigrant Chinese were taking jobs from them and suppressing wages. By 1876, the Chinese were working in gold mines, manufacturing, and in agriculture. A New York Times article of the era contends that, "In all these vocations, as a rule, they [the Chinese] work for lower wages than are usually paid to white men."1 The outward displays of discrimination against the Chinese workers would often force them out of the white dominated workplace and into lower paid occupations. Because there was a shortage of women in California at this time the Chinese men often turned to becoming domestic servants, cooks, housekeepers, or laundry attendants.2 This forced the Chinese workers into the lower wage positions and fulfilled the perception that they were willing to work for less money. The Chinese were also the subject of intense racism in the press and in the public debates over the employment issue. These emotions prompted the federal government to consider passing the Chinese Exclusion Act, which would ban Chinese immigration and prevent Chinese workers from attaining citizenship. A newspaper of the era argued that the white worker should "be excused if he is impatient with the competition of a laborer who lives on the cheapest food, lives in a dry goods box, has no more interest in the State than a bird of the air, and returns to his own land as soon as he accumulates a little money."3 Though these were the prevailing attitudes toward the Chinese, there was a small oppositional viewpoint. As the Chinese Exclusion Act was being debated nationally, the merchants and businessmen warned of taking such extreme action aimed at a single country and race. Their interest was in increasing trade with China that was just beginning to open up to American products. The merchants warned, "The Chinese government would be perfectly justified in retaliating upon us, if we commit such a base act of international treachery as that contemplated by this act."4 The issue that had begun as a labor dispute in California had risen to the level of a national debate as Congress considered the Act. In the emotionally charged political debate, the voice of reason and truth was often obscured by the polarization of emotions. Professor Wells Williams of Yale College, a leading Social Scientist of the period, published a paper in 1879 after studying Chinese immigration for 25 years. He contended that their impact on the economy had been positive and many industries could not have been started without the aid of their labor. He further argued that the anti-Chinese sentiment was a result of nativism and said, "The main arguments in the denunciation of the Chinese have been founded on the partial statements of facts and exaggerations of evils that have been caused by the bad treatment the Chinese have received."5 Professor Williams said that the Californians had made every effort to keep the Chinese from assimilating and now were complaining that they would not assimilate He stated that the issue was "...such a mixture of facts, fears, and assertions [. . .] that much of the ill-will against the Chinese has been fostered."6 Research by Boswell in 1986 contended that the ethnocentric racism against the Chinese had resulted in a political alliance between white workers and white small business owners in the Democratic Party to secure passage of the Act.7 The power of this political alliance could be seen in the vote as reported by the San Francisco Bulletin in which 154, 638 voted for the ban and only 883 people voted against banning Chinese immigration.8 The political rhetoric had swayed over 99% of the population to support nativism and ignore the voice of more reasoned thought. The passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 had laid the foundation for a new nationalistic attitude and spawned greater feelings on animosity towards immigrants in the next 4 decades. The Chinese Exclusion Act was reauthorized in 1892 and the next 30 years saw a rise in European immigration primarily through Ellis Island in New York. This period was also accompanied by unemployment, falling prices, business fluctuations, and widespread loss of security.9 In addition, business leaders began to view immigration as a source that was strengthening the cause of the unions, and many blamed European immigrants for the labor unrest.10 They had previously relied on immigrant labor to provide a means to maintain a negotiating dominance, but now began to view it as counter-productive.11 Anti-immigrant sentiment flourished in the white working class unions and the open door policy began to lose its biggest supporter, which was the business community. By the beginning of the 20th century there was almost universal support for greater restrictions on immigration. The immigration issue reached a panic level in 1921 when it was reported that nearly 1 million immigrants had entered America in the previous year.12 Agreements had been passed that restricted immigration based on literacy and political radicalism, but the 1921 Act set quotas based on current population levels and set maximum limits.13 This action had long been supported by organizations such as the Immigration Restriction League, a group of Bostonian lawyers, professors, and philanthropists in which Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was an active member.14 They campaigned for setting standards on the quality of the immigrants and in a 1907 mailing they proclaimed that over 70% of the 'defectives' in the New York schools were foreign born and advocated to, "...protect the country from those who tend to lower the average of health and intelligence."15 As the levels of immigration rose through the next decade other, and more radical, groups would join the anti-immigrant movement. As the anti-immigration movement gained momentum, it became harsher in its rhetoric. A 1915 editorial in the North American Review advocated restrictions on immigration due to their criminal activity, though a series of studies that ended in 1924 found that "...newcomers were less likely to be involved in crime than the native born."16 A 1923 issue of the Saturday Evening Post called immigrants from southeastern Europe "the dullest and dumbest people in Europe" and helped perpetuate the public image that Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians, and Greeks were largely criminal elements.17 The more racist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) also advocated these attitudes. In an address given in 1923 at the Texas State Fair by H. W. Evans, head of the KKK, he cited over a dozen countries18 that he contended had, "...racial strains and standards completely incompatible with our American conception of social and public life."19 When the National Origins Act of 1924 was finalized the countries of Northern Europe and Scandinavia were awarded nearly 87% of the available slots, while the countries on the KKK's hate list were only awarded 11% of the total quota.20 Ethnocentric nativism had formed the new immigration policy, and stereotyping had shaped it. 3.) Recommendations Historical research only has value if it is put to a purpose of altering the present and shaping the future. Lessons learned from the mistakes made in the past need to be carefully evaluated to see what application they may have today. The current immigration situation in America is similar to the era of 1880-1920 in many ways. The issue is polarized by half truths and exaggerated rhetoric. The attitudes of racism and nativism continue to play a large part as the citizenry attempts to justify these socially deviant behaviors with false claims. More research should be done on this topic to see if there is a language that can open up a dialogue and eliminate the highly charged content and seek the truth about the immigration problem. Without the truth and well-reasoned thought, America will be doomed to follow a policy that is formed with ill intent. 4.) Conclusion In conclusion, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the result of exaggerated economic claims made by workers who blamed a variety of social ills on the Chinese immigrants. Most of the claims have since been proven to be at best only loosely based in fact. Though scholarly literature and the business community were in favor of maintaining an open door policy for China, the extreme political rhetoric was able to influence the voters and the Congress. This new change in attitude towards immigrants continued to build and was transferred to other ethnic minorities in the next few decades. By 1924, ethnocentrism and stereotyping had forged the Country of Origin Act of 1924. Quotas were set based on the stereotypical public images that were portrayed in literature and anecdotal stories. By examining this crucial period in the history of immigration America may be able to avert the same mistakes when forming a policy to confront the current immigration dilemma. The policy should be void of the nativism, racism, and ethnocentrism that characterized the immigration policy of 100 years ago. Bibliography Boswell, Terry E. "A Split Labor Market Analysis of Discrimination Against Chinese Immigrants, 1850-1882." American Sociological Review 51, no.3 (1986): 352-71. JSTOR. Evans, Hiram W. "The Menace of Modern Immigration." Ku Klux Klan, Dallas, TX. 24 Oct. 1923. 9 Nov. 2007 digital.lib.msu.edu/collections/index.cfmTitleID=148 - 12k - Hall, Prescott . "Letter to Supporters." Immigration Restriction League (U.S.); Records, 1893-1921. 31 Jan. 1907. Immigration Restriction League. Harvard University Library. http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/5398778n=21&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=0.25 Heald, Morrell. "Business Attitudes Toward European Immigration, 1880-1900." The Journal of Economic History 13, no.3 (1953): 291-304. JSTOR. Martizez, Ramiro, and Matthew T. Lee. "On Immigration and Crime." The Nature of Crime: On Continuity and Change 1 (2000): 485-524 http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf "Merchants and Chinamen." The New York Times 21 Feb. 1879. ProQuest Nash, Jeffery et al. The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society. 6th ed. New York: Pearson, 2003. Nighbert, Virginia. "Henry Cabot Lodge (1850-1924)." . 8 July 2003. University of New Mexico. 9 Nov. 2007 . "Social Science Problems." The New York Times 11 Sep. 1879. ProQuest "The Latest Chinese Scare." The New York Times 5 Apr. 1876. ProQuest "Unanimity on the Chinese Question." The New York Times 31 Oct. 1879. ProQuest "Who Was Shut Out: Immigration Quotas, 1925-1927." History Matters. Geroge Mason University. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078/ Read More