Notes on Anti-Immigrant Attitudes and Action Across Two Eras of Mass Immigration (1880-1924 and 1970-1998)

Overview

• Article by Charles Jaret examining anti-immigrant attitudes and actions during two major periods of U.S. mass immigration: 1880-1924 and 1970-1998 (two eras of heaviest migration).
• Goals:
  • Compare similarities and differences in anti-immigrant phenomena across eras.
  • Identify central fears and threats Americans associate with mass immigration.
• Cautions (two):
  • Do not examine anti-immigrant sentiment in isolation from pro-immigrant attitudes; both sides are part of the immigration dialogue.
  • The essay is not a complete catalog of sentiment or events; anti-immigrant phenomena wax and wane within and across decades.
• Two key conclusions:
  • In the 1990s, nativism became more widespread than in several previous decades.
  • While core nativist beliefs resemble earlier eras, new ideas have augmented support for nativism beyond its traditional conservative base.
• Core framing: nativism, fear, and perceived threats accompany mass immigration; the article situates these within historical continuities and transformations.

Similarities and Differences in Anti-Immigrant Attitudes and Actions

• Roy Garis quote (post-1924) notes the likeness of arguments across generations; contemporary fears mirror those of earlier periods.
• Across both periods (1880-1924 vs. 1970-1998), anti-immigrant sentiment resembles earlier peak-period patterns; some scholars describe present attitudes as echoing the “bad old days.”
• Both eras feature a “classic text” fusing nativist fears with white-racist notions: Madison Grant’s "The Passing of the Great Race" (1916) and Peter Brimelow’s "Alien Nation" (1995).
• Economic alliance patterns: labor unions favor restricting immigration; business interests often favor higher immigration; immigrant groups mobilize to defend their interests.
• Prestigious commissions studied immigration’s economic consequences in both eras: Dillingham Commission (appointed 1907), Hesburgh Commission (1978), Jordan Commission (1992). Recommendations influenced policy over time.
• The economic value of immigrants has long been debated: Andrew Carnegie estimated immigrant value at $1{,}500$ per immigrant in 1886; contemporary NAS estimates show a net gain of $278$ per year per immigrant worker.
• Central questions: Are the similarities real or do they mask deeper historical transformations?

Similarities

• National and racial origins shifts as a concern.
  • Dillingham Commission findings cited: by 1912, fear of losing the old immigrant stock (Northern/Western Europe) and rising “new” immigration from Southern/Eastern Europe; era hallmark: 1883 as a dividing point.
  • Old immigrants perceived as more assimilable; new immigrants (Southern/Eastern Europe, Asia) seen as harder to assimilate, with claims about discord and undesirable traits.
  • Asian and other non-European immigrants were viewed as racially different; calls emerged to exclude them.
• Contemporary parallels: post-1965 shift toward immigration from Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean prompted concerns about assimilation and cultural change.
  • Auster’s view: rapid demographic shift toward multiracial society could threaten common culture.
• Public opinion and racialized language: early tropes of racial superiority persist; modern restrictionists sometimes avoid explicit racial language, choosing economic and social cost arguments instead, though extreme voices still invoke racial frames.
• Public discourse and political economy: similar political-economic alignments and institutional studies across eras; ongoing debates about how to measure economic impact of immigration.
• Notable economic metrics: historical and current estimates of immigrant value to the economy; long-standing attempts to quantify economic impact.

Differences

• Illegal immigration prominence: today’s discourse centers on illegal or undocumented immigration as the defining crisis; historical periods had different patterns of law and enforcement.
  • Early 20th century: illegal entry existed (e.g., “white slave trade,” illegal crossing via Canada), but public alarm was less intense and enforcement differed.
  • Modern period: a dominant focus on illegal entries (often misperceived as the majority) and responses like state-level English-language measures and immigration-control advocacy.
• Discriminatory laws and enforcement history:
  • 1917 literacy tests; 1921 and 1924 quota laws reshaped national origins and reduced immigration from certain regions.
  • Earlier era featured numerous state-level restrictions across professions and land ownership (e.g., alien land laws targeting Japanese immigrants).
  • Modern era involves restrictions and enforcement focusing on undocumented immigrants and access to social services, rather than broad, explicit racial quotas.
• United States position in the world:
  • 1880-1924: U.S. rose to major commercial/military power; international engagements correlated with higher immigration; later mood shifted toward isolationism and nationalism.
  • 1960s-present: U.S. maintains a significant international role; international linkages shape immigration policy; pro-immigration voices often align with foreign policy and global interdependence.
• New arguments in the present era:
  • Two distinct contemporary claims absent in earlier period:
    1) A “digestion” or cooling-off period after decades of mass immigration, arguing for a recovery before further change (based on 1920s precedents).
    2) The 1965 law’s unintended consequences, arguing that current policy contradicts public will due to high actual immigration levels.
• Attitudes about the legitimacy of racially coded arguments: contemporary nativists often avoid explicit racial language, while historical nativism openly used racial classifications; the article notes a shift in rhetorical style, even as underlying fears persist.

Nativism Then and Now

• Framework: anti-immigrant attitudes center on fears that immigrants threaten political order, economic systems, social/cultural life, or the environment.

Immigrants as Political Threats

• Three forms of alleged political threats:
  • Allegations of disloyalty or subversion; immigrants as agents of foreign powers.
  • Historical case: German Americans during WWI attacked as un-American; suppression of German language; anti-German sentiment and policy actions.
  • Catholic, Jewish, and Japanese immigrant groups were accused of dual loyalties or being loyal to foreign/undemocratic ideologies; Japanese treated as potential fifth column after 1905 escalation.
  • Contemporary examples: Arab and Mexican immigrants accused of aiding foreign powers; concerns about terrorism (Iran hostage crisis, Persian Gulf War, 1990s/1990s era); Oklahoma City bombing led to suspicion of foreign involvement by some.
• Japanese and other immigrant groups faced fears of divided loyalties and anti-democratic influence; concerns reappeared in new forms with different targets.
• A third political fear: immigrants’ political interests and values may diverge from the national consensus, potentially causing polarization or disruption.
• English-language emphasis and Americanization programs were historically used to socialize immigrants; modern debates echo language and assimilation concerns (e.g., English as official language efforts).
• Prohibition example: 1920s pro- and anti-immigrant positions around alcohol reflected how immigrant groups were cast as morally responsible or detrimental to national life; nativist rhetoric linked immigration to social ills.
• Contemporary language issues echo assimilation concerns: opposition to bilingual education and support for “English-only” policies; debates about the place of immigrant identities within the national culture.
• Economic dimension of political threat: concerns about immigrant political influence and alignment with anti-immigrant policy positions (e.g., arguments about who benefits from federal policies or who should control immigration levels).

Immigrants as Economic Threats

• Core debate: do immigrants spur economic growth or depress native workers’ wages and job prospects?
• Contemporary pro-immigration studies emphasize overall net economic gains; some blame immigrants for wage suppression during downturns.
• Historical views often claimed immigrants displaced native workers, especially Black workers in the 1880s-1920s; some argued that immigrant labor suppressed wages and blocked improvements for older workers.
• The Dillingham Commission suggested that large supply of immigrant labor hindered wage increases rather than causing direct wage reductions for specific groups.
• Historical cases of economic-ethnic conflict include anti-Catholic economic agitation linked to financial crises; anti-Asian land ownership concerns aimed to curb competition.
• Modern critiques focus on specific sectors (e.g., high-tech, engineering) and concerns about credential recognition; some argue immigration aids the national economy, while others claim it depresses wages or crowds out native-born workers.
• Big-picture view: debates persist about the distribution of costs and benefits across class, race, and region; the national debate often ties immigration to social services costs and welfare burdens, especially for undocumented immigrants.

Immigrants as Social and Cultural Threats to the American Way of Life

• Core fear: immigrants may not blend into American culture and may alter social norms and symbols in ways that threaten the national fabric.
• Historical examples: concerns about German, Irish, Italian, Jewish, Greek, and Mexican immigrant cultures; fears of “alien” cultural practices that diverge from Anglo-American norms.
• Americanization programs sought to assimilate immigrants through language, education, and citizenship instruction; debates about whether assimilation is feasible or desirable.
• Contemporary concerns include language diversity, cultural practices (e.g., religious or ritual differences), and the perceived risk of maintaining non-English cultural norms; bilingual education and official-language movements are central policy battlegrounds.
• Cultural threats are also linked to broader anxieties about national identity and social cohesion; some commentators argue that pluralism weakens shared national values, while others defend cultural diversity as constitutive of a vibrant democracy.
• Ethnic and racialized claims persist: arguments about which immigrant groups are more likely to assimilate, contribute to American life, or remain culturally distinct.

Immigrants as Threats to the Natural Environment

• A newer line of argument frames immigration as contributing to ecological strain, overpopulation, and environmental degradation.
• Advocates of limits on immigration point to population growth, resource depletion, pollution, and strain on infrastructure and public services.
• Notable positions include: Carrying Capacity Network proposals (e.g., no more than $100{,}000$ immigrants per year); linking Chesapeake Bay decline and other environmental stresses to population growth from immigration.
• Critics of this line emphasize that environmental concerns may be intertwined with broader cultural fears and that presenting immigration solely as an environmental threat can obscure other social and economic dimensions.
• The Sierra Club survey (1998): internal debate over adopting population-reduction positions; a majority favored maintaining a neutral stance to avoid internal division, illustrating divisions within environmental movements on immigration policy.

Notable Texts, Data, and Institutions in the Debate

• Classic texts fusing nativist fears with racial ideas:
  • Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race (1916)
  • Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1995)
• Government commissions studying immigration economics (progress on policy):
  • Dillingham Commission (appointed 1907)
  • Hesburgh Commission (Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, 1978)
  • Jordan Commission (United States Commission on Immigration Reform, 1992)
• Economic benchmarks:
  • 1886 immigrant value: $1500$ per immigrant
  • NAS estimate: $278$ annual net gain per immigrant worker
• Policy landmarks:
  • 1917 literacy test (attempt to upgrade immigrant quality)
  • 1921 and 1924 immigration quotas (restrictive laws)
  • 1990 Immigration Act: increased preference immigrants to $675{,}000$ per year
  • 1986 law: illegal employment prohibition for undocumented workers
  • 1994 California Proposition 187 (targeting illegal immigrants)
  • 1998 California Proposition 227 (end bilingual education)
• Public opinion indicators:
  • 1880s Wisconsin poll noted perceived harm of immigration to workers’ trades; modern Los Angeles polls show 56.8% of Black respondents and 46.7% of White respondents feel immigration reduces economic opportunity if current rates persist; see also broad shifts in sentiment from early 20th century to 1920s and from the 1960s to the 1990s.
  • Contemporary surveys show 60–70% favor laws to reduce immigration; racialized group comparisons show who is deemed “good for” or “bad for” the country among immigrant groups.
• Key examples of violence and coercion:
  • 19th/early 20th century: riots and lynchings (e.g., Italian immigrants in New Orleans, 1891; Greek immigrants, 1908; 1909 South Omaha; West Frankfort, 1920)
  • 1980s–1990s: hate crimes against Asians (Vincent Chin, 1982; Jim Loo, 1989), 1992 LA riots targeting Latinos and Asians, and other anti-immigrant violence.
• Changes in political rhetoric and organization:
  • Emergence of modern anti-immigrant groups (e.g., Federation for American Immigration Reform, American Immigration Control Foundation) and policy debates around chain migration, diversity visas, and skilled immigration.
  • The two eras differ in explicit racial framing; the contemporary era employs more nuanced or coded language while still appealing to nationalist and nativist sentiments.
• Policy and strategic implications:
  • In the modern era, policy tends to focus on illegal immigration, border enforcement, and deportation rather than wholesale legal restructuring of visas; in the 1920s, the focus was on national-origin quotas and literacy requirements.

Public Opinion: Attitudes Across Eras

• Early era (late 19th–early 20th centuries): an initial open attitude toward foreigners after the Spanish-American War, then a shift toward restriction and skepticism in the 1920s.
• Modern era (1960s–1990s): gradual shift toward more hostile attitudes toward immigration, with polls showing substantial support for limiting immigration and negative views about specific immigrant groups.
• Across both eras, African Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants shifted from relative openness to more negative views during the 1880-1924 period, with concerns about job competition; some Black leaders and groups argued for a more humane stance toward certain immigrant groups.
• Contemporary Black opinion links immigrant competition to wages and job opportunities; surveys show large majorities of Black respondents believe immigrants, especially undocumented ones, displace native workers and depress wages.

Implications and Themes

• Two enduring tensions drive anti-immigrant sentiment:
  • Economic competition and perceived threats to wages, jobs, and social service costs.
  • Perceived threats to national identity, social order, and cultural cohesion.
• Policy responses reflect these tensions: restrictive quotas and literacy tests historically; contemporary emphasis on enforcement, border control, and selective immigration reform.
• The role of public opinion is pivotal: shifts in perceived economic conditions correlate with support for restriction; language and cultural assimilation remain central symbolic issues.
• Ethical and philosophical considerations:
  • Balancing immigrants’ rights with national interests and security concerns.
  • Debating the limits of national identity, cultural pluralism, and the idea of the United States as a melting pot versus a nation of distinct communities.
• Practical implications for policy:
  • Economic arguments for immigration often contrast with concerns about social services and wage competition.
  • Environmental and population considerations add a new dimension to the policy debate, though they are contested within movements.

Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance

• The piece situates anti-immigrant sentiment within long-running debates about American identity, assimilation, and national destiny.
• It connects anti-immigrant ideas to broader political, economic, and cultural trends (labor dynamics, corporate interests, globalization, and international relations).
• The analysis highlights how framing (racial vs. economic, cultural vs. environmental) shapes policy and public opinion, with practical consequences for immigration law and social policy.
• It underscores that contemporary nativism is not a monolith: it has multiple strands (economic grievance, cultural protectionism, language policies, and environmental concerns) that interact with, reinforce, or dilute one another.

Notable Textual References and Figures (for quick lookup)

• Classic texts: The Passing of the Great Race (1916); Alien Nation (1995)
• Government commissions: Dillingham Commission (1907); Hesburgh Commission (1978); Jordan Commission (1992)
• Economic benchmarks: $1500$ (earlier immigrant value); $278$ (NAS net gain per immigrant per year)
• Legal milestones: literacy test (1917); quotas (1921, 1924); 1990 act: $675{,}000$ per year
• Periods: $1880-1924$; $1970-1998$; modern debate and policy shifts
• Public opinion metrics:
  • 56.8 ext{ ext{%}} of Blacks and 46.7 ext{ ext{%}} of Whites in a Los Angeles sample felt immigration reduced opportunities when present rates persist
  • General opposition rates: 60 ext{ ext%} to 70 ext{ ext%} in the 1990s for restrictive laws
• Policy exemplars: California Proposition 187 (1994); Proposition 227 (1998)
• Environmental debate: Carrying Capacity Network’s population limits; Sierra Club vote (1998) on population and immigration positions

Summary Takeaways

• Anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. has deep historical roots that resurface across eras, adapting to new contexts and targets but retaining core themes: threats to political order, economy, culture, and environment.
• While the surface rhetoric changes, the underlying dynamic is often about intergroup competition over resources, status, and national identity.
• Public policy has oscillated between assimilationist and restrictionist impulses, with commissions and scholars informing the economic dimensions of immigration and shaping subsequent policy.
• The contemporary era introduces new elements (illegal immigration as a focal crisis; environmental framing; coded language around race and culture) but the fundamental concerns echo earlier patterns.
• Understanding this historical arc helps contextualize present debates and informs how policy discussions might address economic concerns, cultural pluralism, and the political implications of immigration.