Assignment 3

NAME

ASSIGNMENT 3: Immigration restriction in the 1920s

During the 1920s there were two viewpoints regarding immigration restriction. Mr. Parrish, Madison Grant, and John Box favored immigration restriction. Mr. London and Franz Boaz opposed immigration restriction.

Lucien W. Parrish is arguing in favor of immigration restriction because he views immigration as a danger to the United States. He believes the new immigrants from Eastern European countries such as Italy, Europe, and Poland, are bringing a "foreign and unsympathetic element" to America (149). By this, he means that these foreigners do not care about American culture. Instead they are only concerned about themselves and making money. He argues that foreigners who are not in sync with American ideas should be kept out of the country, that way they cannot intervene with Americans who are loyal to their country. American citizenship is a privilege that should only be given to those people who are loyal to America. Parish argues that immigrants put the United States at risk because the foreign element they bring to the country will poison American society. He refers to this poison as the "new and strange doctrines being taught" (149). By new and strange doctrines, he means the communist and socialist ideas spreading throughout Eastern Europe and Asia. Since these ideas were spreading, the United States was afraid that immigrants would bring communism and socialism with them and dethrone the Democracy that America had in place. Parrish believes we need to get rid of these issues before they flood up the country when he says, "It is the time now for us to act and act quickly, because every month's delay increases the difficulty in which we find ourselves and renders the problems of government more difficult of solution"(150). Parrish agrees with immigration restriction because of the dangers immigrants bring regarding American culture and government.

Mr. London was a Polish immigrant who opposed immigration restriction. Mr. London disagreed with everything Mr. Parrish was saying. Mr. London says, "The new immigration is neither different nor worse, and besides that, identically the same arguments were used against the old immigration"(150). He is referring to the old immigration arguments in the 1870's and the new immigration arguments in the 1920's. Americans thought that North Western European immigrants were bad people and would destroy our country. They later found out they are not bad people. Now, Americans think that Eastern European immigrants are going to destroy the country. He argues that the United States has "exaggerated nationalism" meaning that it is not everything it claims to be (150). The United States shut the door on the people they said they would liberate. He goes on to say "To prevent immigration means to cripple the United States" (151). He talks about how immigrants have greatly contributed to American industry and that States with the most industry have the highest population of immigrants. As an immigrant himself, Mr. London disagrees with immigration restriction and sees the new immigrant wave as a repeat of the first immigrant wave in the 1870's.

Madison Grant favored immigration restriction. He believed that "America was for the Americans." Immigrants do not adjust to the American culture. Instead, "they largely marry among themselves, maintain their religions and customs, and retain their foreign connections and sympathies almost without abatement." He did not think America should allow the impure race and those with disabilities into the country. "Foreigners remain foreign" and do not create the so called "melting pot" like expected. Grant argues that the immigration will create a "disharmonious community" because they do not amalgamate with natives. At the end of his argument, Grant makes a statement showing his belief that the only people who we could consider to run the American government would be Anglo-Saxon's and Nordic's, or those of North Western European descent, because those were the first immigrant to come to the United States. These immigrants were of good genes. Madison Grant viewed immigration as something that was hurting the American community.

Franz Boaz opposed immigration restriction. Boaz believed that the radical superiority ideas were complete nonsense. He said, "Nationality is absolutely irrelevant." He showed his belief that it was wrong to criticize people born with physical and mental disabilities when he said, "we are possessed by the fear of being swamped by a people of inferior physical and mental endowment."He argued that immigrants coming from Southern and Eastern Europe will not cause a collapse of our civilization. He believed in the idea that it doesn't matter where you are from because that does not affect who you are. Racial superiority should not play a role in who can live in the United States.

John Box favored immigration restriction. John Box pointed out that the Mexican Peons will cross the border to America and take very low paying jobs in industry, transportation, and agriculture. Mexicans are hired because they will work for such low pay, and this causes Americans to be "left without employment and drift into poverty." The farms that Mexicans are working on are going to increase production and become more profitable only because the importers are not having to pay the Mexican farmers much money. John Box is arguing to protect the American people. He believes the United States cannot get rid of American farm life just because we want to earn a couple extra bucks. John Box makes a very racial comment, "American racial stock from further degradation or change through mongrelization." By this, he is saying that Mexicans are barbarians and are of lesser descent than Americans. Another reason John Box favors immigration restriction is so that it will "keep out the illiterate and the diseased." He believes that Mexicans are ignorant and contaminated with sickness and that they will bring that to America. He views Mexicans as criminals and sees this a risk to Americans. John Box argues for immigration restriction because he is trying to protect the American society.

In my view, Mr. London made the strongest argument. Mr. London brings up historical evidence of why he opposes immigration restriction. I think a lot of the reason we study history is so that we can learn from our past. Here, Mr. London is reflecting on the nation's past. In the 1870s, Americans surmised that the new North Western European immigrants would ruin the country. They were completely wrong. Now, Americans are making the same assumptions about Eastern European immigrants. The "new" immigrant situation is no different. They should have learned the first time around that immigrants are not bad people. Another reason I think Mr. London made the strongest argument is because he shows that immigration can lead to growth in American society. He states, "To prevent immigration means to cripple the United States" and then he points out the ways in which immigrants have contributed to American society (151). Industry was a huge way that the United States modernized. Immigrants played a significant role in this industrial modernization as they were the main workers in industrial states that were booming. Mr. London's argument strongly illustrates the reasons why the United States should not restrict immigrants.