Reaction to New Immigration

<h1>Text Preview</h1> <p> <P>The influx of millions of new immigrants into America’s cities had a powerful effect on city governments. At the time, state and federal governments did little to help immigrants adjust to their new lives in America, leaving city governments burdened with the enormous task. Due to the rapid rate of urban growth, cities could scarcely keep up with city dwellers' needs for transit, water, sewers, street cleaning, and fire and police protection. This lack of governmental preparedness created room for corrupt political machines to intercede. <BR></P> <P>The powerful “bosses” that led these political machines provided services to immigrants and other residents in exchange for their support at the polls. A boss was often able to create large immigrant voting blocks that he could then use for his own purposes. Some of the services provided by the political machines included finding work for immigrants (often on the city payroll), providing food and housing to the poor, offering legal assistance, and building schools, parks, and hospitals in immigrant neighborhoods. Although many of these services were in fact beneficial to the immigrants, the political bosses also provided themselves with healthy profits in the process. <BR></P> </p> <p> <P>George Washington Plunkitt, a minor boss in Tammany Hall, New York City’s most infamous political machine, gained notoriety for his corruption. In 1905 during a newspaper interview, he described his views on how officials might make money from their positions. Plunkitt explained that if he was tipped off about an imminent public project, he would buy up the land where the project was to take place, and then he would sell it for a profit when the plan became public and people were interested in purchasing the land. Plunkitt felt this type of activity was an example of honest graft. A dishonest graft, on the other hand, would consist of blackmailing people or stealing money from the city treasury. These types of corrupt practices infuriated many reformers, but little was done at the time to curb the political machines and the bosses that ran them. <BR></P> </p> <p> <P>In addition to political machines, the influx of new immigrants into America created a resurgence of “nativism,” or antiforeignism. Such sentiments had originated during the 1840s and 1850s with the mass immigration of the Irish and German. The new group of southern and eastern European immigrants with their unfamiliar cultural and religious traditions created new concern among many old-stock Americans who thought these new arrivals were difficult to assimilate into American culture. <BR></P> <P>In some respects, the new immigrants did not adapt as well as earlier groups. The fact that they lived in ethnic enclaves in the cities slowed the adoption of American culture. Additionally, some of the immigrants had no intention of assimilating or even staying in the United States. Of the 20 million immigrants who arrived between 1820 and 1900 nearly 25 percent returned to their homelands. These “birds of passage” were often single men who simply came to America to make enough money to improve their lives when they returned home. <BR></P> </p> <p> <P>Whether the immigrants stayed or not, their presence became worrisome to many native-born Americans. Many nativists saw the new immigrants as a threat to traditional America culture and values, the Anglo-Saxon bloodline, and their jobs. The old-stock Americans often viewed the new arrivals as culturally and religiously exotic. The new immigrants’ high birthrate worried many native-born Americans that they would soon be outnumbered. Others were concerned that the Anglo-Saxon bloodline might be tainted by what they saw as inferior southern European blood. <BR></P> </p> <p> <P>More prejudice came from trade unionists who were angered by the immigrants’ willingness to work for extremely low wages. Adding to the nativist feelings, companies sometimes used immigrant labor to break strikes. The immigrants themselves may have been unfamiliar with strikes and thus, unlikely to think they were taking other people’s jobs. Another concern stemmed from the foreign doctrines such as socialism, communism, and anarchism that the immigrants brought to America.<BR></P> </p> <p> <P>As nativist sentiments grew, antiforeign organizations began to appear. The most notable was the American Protective Association (APA), which formed in 1887. The APA grew slowly at first, but in 1893 the economic depression helped the organization attract thousands of new members. The group soon claimed more than a million members. Similar to the nativist group in the 1840s and 1850s called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, the APA’s primary goal was to resist what its members felt were Catholic conspiracies. Some of the organization’s activities included voting against Catholic candidates and promoting immigration restriction and stringent naturalization requirements. <BR></P> </p> <p> <P>The APA and other organizations wishing to restrict immigration never achieved their aim. However, the issue did receive some attention at a national level. In 1882, Representative Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts began arguing to exclude illiterates from immigrating into America. In 1897, President Cleveland vetoed a bill that included such a restriction. President Taft vetoed one in 1913, and President Wilson vetoed similar legislation in 1915 and 1917. Their reason for vetoing the restriction was that it would penalize people because they lacked the opportunity for learning to read. Despite this argument, Congress overrode the 1917 veto and the restriction became law. The Immigration Act of 1917 was replaced by The National Origins Act of 1924, which was even more restrictive. This Act was repealed in 1965 by the Hart-Celler Act.<BR></P> </p> <p id="TextCopyright">Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of California and Monterey Institute for Technology and Education</p>