immigration problems then and now

In the middle of the 19^th century, there was a widespread concern about immigration.  At time, concern was focused on German and Irish Catholics.  But in time, all the complaints disappeared.  It would be interesting to measure how long it took to resolve the complaints, and I don’t know how to do that.  Did it take two generations?  What’s clear is that the complaints were resolved a long time ago, and are now a source of humor, not an on-going fight.

The Germans had to deal with an upsurge of new prejudice when the United States went to war with Germany.  But I don’t think that it is fair to say that this bias showed that resistance to German immigration had not ended.  Of course, I don’t know whether anyone can ever write rules for prejudice; that’s a fool’s errand. 

Some people still tell ethnic jokes about Irish drunks.  In my experience, most of the people who tell the jokes are – well, not Irish drunks, exactly, but drunk Irish.  In other words, the jokes don’t touch a raw nerve. 

Some people argue that there is still strong anti-Catholic prejudice in the country.  To be sure, anti-clericalism remains, inside and outside the Church.  But – to take one example – if six of the nine Supreme Court Justices happen to be Catholic today, I just don’t think that anti-Catholic sentiment has to be a national concern.  We’re doing fine.  The bishops and millions of Catholics and other religious people (including me) are concerned about a recent spate of laws and decisions that limit religious liberty.  Many people seem to believe that secularism is the same as neutrality, and so we are embarked on a robust debate.  But I don’t think that’s anti-Catholicism.

The anti-immigrant prejudices of the 19^th century are not a problem today.  Somehow, they got worked out.  So I would argue that whatever complaints and concerns that anti-immigrant forces want to make today, when those arguments are the same as the arguments from 150 years ago, we can set them aside -- not that the problems are magically solved, but they aren't arguments against immigration.  As a nation, we solved those problems once before.  There’s work to do, but stopping immigration was not the solution then, and isn’t the solution now.

As I understand it, the complaints of the anti-immigrant Native American Party, or the “Know-Nothings,” included: (1) a dramatic rise in crime, including murder, (2) a dramatic rise in welfare costs, (3) alcohol, (4) non-English speakers, (5) a weakening of a national consensus about values, specifically Biblical teaching.  Their proposed solutions included: (1) restricting immigration, especially from Catholic countries, (2) permitting only native-born Americans to hold political offices, (3) a 21 year wait for citizenship (and the right to vote), (4) restricting public school teaching positions to Protestants and mandate daily Bible readings, (5) restrict the sale of liquor, especially on Sunday, and (6) restrict the use of languages other than English.

The problems that I hear anti-immigrant groups like FAIR (the nation’s leading anti-immigration group) include: (1) violence, (2) welfare costs, including hospital and education costs, (3) drugs, (4) a weakening of American values, especially the work ethic and respect for the law, (5) a loss of control of our borders, making it easier for terrorists to enter the country, (6) non-English speakers, and (7) reverse discrimination.  Solutions: (1) restrict immigration, especially from Mexico, (2) fight against any proposals for amnesty, (3) arrest and deport illegal aliens, (4) prosecute employers who hire illegal aliens, (4) make English the official language of the country and end the practice of using bi-lingual signs, (5) end reverse discrimination (that is, end affirmative action), (6) promote birth control aggressively.

So what complaints are new?  Crime, welfare, language: no change.  Alcohol then, drugs now: a slight change.  Bible then, American values (based implicitly on the Bible) now: a slight change. 

The changes in proposed solutions are interesting.  Most importantly, anti-immigration activists 150 years ago failed to restrict immigration by law; today, they have the law, and King Canute sits in the sand ordering the tide not to rise.  Since they have the law, they can call immigrants “illegal,” and try to have them deported.  Sheriffs, not vigilantes, try to reverse the tide.  And they can try to go after employers.

One change that fascinates me is about voting.  Back then, immigration opponents said explicitly that they wanted to make newcomers wait for 21 years before they got any political power (that is, the vote).  Buh-duh.  The same is going on today, but it is not in the open.

FAIR does not have a position on population control, as far as I know.  They are linked to ZPG and even NPG – organizations that promote zero population control and negative population control, but they have NOT endorsed their positions, as far as I know.  The question of how anti-immigration groups handle population control may be a very interesting question to watch.  In the 1850s, the nativists splintered over the issue of slavery.  Today, the nativists could splinter over the issue of abortion.

In general, the key complaints and concerns 160 years ago and today are about the same.  That doesn’t mean that they aren’t real issues, but it does mean that we can solve them without closing the borders.  We have seen this before.  Immigration, like birth, does bring problems.  But immigration, like birth, brings far more blessings than burdens!