Ye Eun Lee

Dr. Freymiller
CAS 137H 12
November 3, 2016

Immigration: Americas Shifting Perspectives Throughout History

With the current election in the United States and the extensive media coverage

associated with it, immigration has emerged as one of the most discussed topics of the time.

Calls for additional immigration reforms in relation to the American labor force and to curb the

seemingly ever-increasing numbers of illegal immigrants have reinvigorated conversations about

this age-old issue that originates back in the founding of this country. As these discussions are

studied, however, it is crucial to consider the historical factors that contributed to the change in

perception of immigration, as a country that was founded on its basis. Intuitively, it is easy to

assume that early Colonial Americans held a very loose and positive view of immigration, as

they themselves directly benefitted from minimally restrictive policies however, early

immigration laws indicate that the general negative sentiment towards immigration has always

existed, even when immigration seemed to enrich the United States. By observing the

relationship between the reasons for mass immigration, the origins of immigrants, and

immigration legislation passed in various points throughout American history, it is clear that the

American people have struggled to decide whether or not immigration is beneficial as the United

States continued to emerge as a global power. These shifts between a negative and positive

perception of immigration are representative of the nations struggle to value either economic

status and self-interest or the cultural values and good will the country was founded upon.

It should come as no surprise that the first settlers and immigrants to Colonial America

(~1500 late 1700s) were of European origin. In a historical analysis text of immigration called

Ethnic America: A History of Immigration, authors Leonard Dinnerstein and David M. Reimers
state that the original seventeenth-century settlers were overwhelmingly English, and it was

they who set the tone for American culture (Dinnerstein and Reimers 1). With this immediate

establishment of the dominant culture in America, came the incorporation of a social concept

called Othering. In Encyclopedia of Geography, Lisa M. Freeman defines Othering as an

identification of difference based on race, ethnicity, sex/gender, often under the guise of the

exotic and the strange. This Otherness can also be understood (and experienced) as forms of

marginalization and exclusion (Freeman). So, as the English Protestants continued to dominate

the New World and its society, newcomers that arrived after settlements had been established

were Othered on the basis of their disparate culture. For example, the Scotch-Irish were a

prominent group in the first mass influx of immigrants between 1680 and 1760. Though they had

a similar language, culture, and religion, the mere fact that they were not English led the English

government to Other the Scotch-Irish, exempting them from bounties, suspending the

importation of Scotch-Irish servants, and placing a duty on imported Scotch-Irish servants

(Dinnerstein and Reimers 2). Solely due to the fact that there were more Scotch-Irish than the

other immigrating groups, one Pennsylvania official at the time said [t]he common fear is that

if they [the Scotch-Irish] thus continue to come they will make themselves proprietors of the

Province (Dinnerstein and Reimers 3). In these early colonial times, the negative perception of

immigration and immigrating groups stemmed from a deviation from the pre-established

dominant culture; those who could not assimilate to the English Protestant culture were

significantly less welcome to the New World. These undertones of hatred and Othering towards

groups differing from the majority culture paved the way for the rest of history; assimilation was

the standard for immigrants as they were expected to absorb the dominant customs while

shedding their own as quickly as possible (Dinnerstein and Reimers 13). So in addition to the
sacrifice and risk of leaving their home country for the promises of the New World, immigrants

also had to sacrifice their identities and customs to gain acceptance in the hearts of the American

people, or risk persecution.

As mass immigration continued with ever-increasing numbers, however, assimilation

became more and more difficult for immigrants who departed their poverty-stricken home

countries in search of new opportunities. Immigrants in the second mass influx (1820 1870)

were largely from northern and western Europe, with French Canadians and the Chinese as well.

According to Ethnic Americans, most immigrants [at this time] came essentially because of

poor economic conditions in Europe and prospects for a better life in the United States the

pace of industrialization, the disruptions of World War I had much to do with the timing of the

emigrants departures (Dinnerstein and Reimers 17). Due to this poverty-driven mass migration

of people, conditions in highly populated cities such as New York City were remarkably poor.

Since the immigrants who resided in these regions had very little possessions, no jobs, no homes,

and no means of living a comfortable life, disease and poverty were common (Dinnerstein and

Reimers 31). Immigrants faced illnesses like pneumonia, diarrhea, and bronchitis typhoid,

typhus, and cholera, and many perished as a result of these (Dinnerstein and Reimers 34). With

no choice but to live and work in these poor, overcrowded, and disease-ridden communities, a

negative perception of these incoming immigrants was inevitable. What little work immigrants

could find was largely unskilled labor, and the American people argued that this increasing

unskilled workforce would depress wages and the American standard of living (Dinnerstein

and Reimers 35). Concerns at this time on behalf of the American people seemed to lie within

maintaining the reputation of the United States as the country continued to grow. Finally, in

1875, the first law restricting immigration was enacted by Congress to ban prostitutes and alien
convicts from American shores, and in 1882 an additional law excluded lunatics, idiots, and

persons likely to become public charges (Dinnerstein and Reimers 63). Though these laws did

not prevent much harm in effect, it clearly reflected the fears of the American people, and desire

to keep America the safe haven it was intended to be.

The next wave of immigration (1880 1930) saw the passage of a number of restrictive

immigration laws as anti-ethnic sentiments continued to flourish in the country. The immigration

of the Chinese in the previous wave brought about the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which

was the first proscription of an ethnic group (Dinnerstein and Reimers 63). This act also

reflected the sudden change in attitude towards the Chinese, who had previously been welcomed

as laborers in California during the 1850s. When the Chinese continued to pour into the

workforce in the tens of thousands, native workers argued that Chinese laborers depressed their

wages and consequently provided unfair compensation (Dinnerstein and Reimers 64). As the

economy worsened, Americans continued to blame and express racist sentiments towards the

Chinese so that they could not assimilate to American culture under the pressure. The Chinese

Exclusion Act was an act of such blatant discrimination on the part of the government that the

American people began to react in a similar fashion to the new immigrants of the late 19th

century into the 20th. Immigrant groups during this time largely consisted of southern and eastern

Europeans, and hatred towards them was unrestricted from the start. Greeks were physically

attacked in Omaha, Nebraska, and they were forced out of Mountain View, Idaho. A New

Englander, observing some Poles weeding rows of onions, commented: Animals, they work

under the sun and in the dirt; with stolid, stupid faces (Dinnerstein and Reimers 47). Italians

and Jews were similarly despised, facing institutional racism as some were forced to attend all-

black schools and were unable to vote (Dinnerstein and Reimers 48). This unbridled hatred
caused ethnic groups to isolate themselves in their own communities, concentrating their

numbers in specific geographical regions or even professions. The attitude towards immigrants

distinctly took on an anti-assimilation, pro-segregation tone that set the stage for further

legislative restrictions against immigration: [Sociologist Professor Edward A. Ross of the

University of Wisconsin] claimed that the restriction [of immigrants] was the scientific solution

for the social ills he and many other social scientists believed immigrants were causing in

American society (Carlson 78). World War I and Americas entry into the war then sparked a

raging fire of nativism, reflected in Congresss passage of the 1917 Immigration Act. This act

restricted the immigration of 'undesirables' from other countries (Tucker and Creller). The act

also contained a mandatory literacy test for immigrants and despite the initial absence of a

regional restriction, created a sort of Asian barred zone to exclude most Asian immigration

(Dinnerstein and Reimers 73). Due to the context of the war, German Americans were also

targeted during this time. Theodore Roosevelt himself was quoted to say the men of German

blood who have to be both German and American are not Americans at all, but traitors to

America and tools and servants of Germany against America (Dinnerstein and Reimers 73).

This time period marked the clear and distinct transition into full-blown ethnic discrimination

fueling the negative perception of immigration. As the country assumed an isolationist mood,

nativism rose to new heights and the country saw the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration

Act of 1924, an expansion on the 1917 Immigration Act. The Johnson-Reed Act limited the

number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota

two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890

national census completely excluded immigrants from Asia, ending free immigration policy

in the United States (The Immigration Act of 1924). Americas perception of immigrants at
this time became remarkably clear: different cultures were not welcome, and assimilation was no

longer the solution for differing groups.

The next wave of immigrants came after the end of World War II (1945 1990), mostly

consisting of refugees and displaced Europeans. Legislation turned towards aiding refugees to

reflect a more liberal and generous spirit of American society and the sense of Christian

obligation that requires us to provide a refuge (Dinnerstein and Reimers 85). After World War

II, many of the pre-established perception of minorities began to change: anti-Semitism peaked

around 1945 but dropped dramatically afterwards as Jews enjoyed professional success; anti-

Catholicism faded as religious groups cooperated to rebuild the country; and education levels

rising allowed immigrants to better assimilate into the country (Dinnerstein and Reimers 86-87).

During this time period, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) was

passed, which paved the way for the future of immigration in America. This act abolished the

national origins quota system that had structured American immigration policy since the 1920s,

replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants skills and family relationships

with citizens or residents of the U.S., clearly indicating the fading of ethnic discrimination in

the American perception of immigration (1965 Immigration and Nationality Act). As a result

of this act loosening immigration restrictions, immigrants began to pour into the country and the

Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy was created by Congress in 1978

(Dinnerstein and Reimers 91). Statistics at this time show a large influx in immigrants from Asia

and South America in 1965, approximately 20,000 Asian immigrants were admitted. In 1985,

this number increased dramatically to over 250,000. Similarly, in South America, 10,000

immigrants were admitted in 1965, jumping to 40,000 in 1985. In Mexico, (not considered in

South America) numbers jumped from 38,000 in 1965 to 61,000 in 1985 (Dinnerstein and
Reimers 102). This increase in Asian and Latin American immigrants set the stage for the

modern era of immigration; an omen of the shift in perspective to come.

Ethnic Americans, published in 1988, states that since 1968 Mexico has been the source

of more newcomers to the United States than any other country. Mexicans and other Hispanic

immigrants count for more than one-fourth of all legal entrants to this country since about 1965

(Dinnerstein and Reimers 107). In this modern wave of immigration (1990 Present), discussion

has largely turned towards these Hispanic immigrants. Because these groups are very easy to

localize geographically, America has seen a regression back to ethnic discrimination. The

problem of Hispanic immigration seems to lie in unprecedented numbers: Expanding from a

small, regionally concentrated population of fewer than 6 million in 1960 (just 3.24 percent of

the U.S. population at the time), to a now widely dispersed population of well more than 50

million (or 16 percent of the nation's population) (Gutirrez 57). Due to many of these Hispanic

immigrants arriving to America from poverty-ridden homelands with low-education levels and

differing religious teachings, they were very quickly hated by the American people. Many

Hispanics also failed to invest themselves into the country for its benefit, as they often believed

their stay in America was temporary (Dinnerstein and Reimers 117). In addition to the Hispanics,

many immigrants during this time period were refugees from post-World War II. An influx in

immigrants with vastly differing political views caused strife and increased violence against

these groups, which included the Indochinese and their neighboring Asian states (Dinnerstein

and Reimers 136). Americans were changing their perspectives on immigration once more, and

the distinct clash between those Americans who value economic prosperity versus humanitarian

aid has come to head in more recent times. In the current position, it appears that Americans are

fairly evenly divided in their positions on immigration. The Public Religion Research Institution
reported in 2015 that Americans overall are more likely to say that newcomers from other

countries strengthen American society (50%) than they are to believe that they represent a threat

to American customs and values (34%), suggesting that while the nation is generally receptive

to immigrants, there still exists a sizable portion of the population that views immigration

negatively (Jones et al., 2).

As the issue of immigration continues to be discussed on a national scale, it is becoming

increasingly clearer that the American perception of immigration depends on whether the country

values economic prosperity or the American good will. Modern legislation and discussion

reflects a desire to curb illegal immigration and increase border control for the sake of economic

prosperity, but opponents of these restrictions embody the desire to protect endangered and

displaced peoples. As the historical context of Americas shift in perception of immigration is

analyzed, it can be assumed that there will always be those groups that resort to ethnic

discrimination and those that push for assimilation of these new immigrants. Perhaps in the

coming years, we will see a more universal American perspective of immigration into the United

States, as we have seen in the past but as it stands, America continues to battle on their stance

towards immigration.
 Works Cited

Carlson, Robert A. The Americanization Syndrome: A Quest for Conformity. London, Croom Helm,

1987.

Dinnerstein, Leonard, and David M. Reimers. Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration. 3rd ed.,

New York, Harper &Amp; Row, 1988.

Freeman, Lisa M. "Other/Otherness." Encyclopedia of Geography. Ed. Barney Warf. Thousand Oaks:

SAGE Publications, Inc., 2010. 2107-2108. SAGE Knowledge. Web. 2 Nov. 2016.

Gutirrez, David G. An Historic Overview of Latino Immigration and the Demographic

Transformation of the United States. American Latinos and the Making of the United States: A

Theme Study, 2013, www.nps.gov/heritageinitiatives/latino/latinothemestudy/immigration.htm,

pp. 5775.

The Immigration Act of 1924. Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State,

history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act.

Jones, Robert P., Daniel Cox, Betsy Cooper, and Rachel Lienesch. How Americans View Immigrants

and What They Want from Immigration Reform: Findings from the 2015 American Values

Atlas. PRRI. 2016. http://www.prri.org/research/survey-americans-view-immigrants-want-

immigration-reform-findings-2015-american-values-atlas/.

1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. US Immigration Legislation Online, The University of

Washington-Bothell Library,

library.uwb.edu/static/usimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html.

Tucker, Davis, and Jessi Creller. U.S. Immigration Legislation: 1917 Immigration Act. US

Immigration Legislation Online, The University of Washington-Bothell Library,

library.uwb.edu/static/usimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html.