An 1896 lament about Italians and Eastern Europeans sounds eerily familiar today

[westwall]

In 1896, Ellis Island was just four years old, but already more than 1 million immigrants had entered the United States through its port. In the coming years, the center would process 12 million people seeking a new home in America -- 69 percent of whom were from Eastern, Central, or Southern Europe. The demographics of the country were changing, much to the fear of some.

In an essay titled "Restriction of Immigration," Atlantic author Francis A. Walker took issue with the "vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry" from Europe immigrating to America. His argument: increasing foreign-born populations would put a "hopeless burden on our country," and take work away from native-born citizens. He writes:

No longer it is a matter of course that that ever industrious and temperate man can find work in the United States...When the country was flooded with ignorant and unskilled foreigners, who could do nothing but the lowest kind of labor, Americans instinctively shrank from the contact and the competition thus offered to them. So long as manual labor, in whatever field, was to be done by all, each in his place, there was no revolt at it; but when working on railroads and canals became the sign of a want of education and of a low social condition, our own people gave it up, and left it to those who were able to do that, and nothing better.

Sound familiar?

The anxiety about immigration in the early 20th century hits a lot of the same notes as the anxiety about immigration today does," says Richard Alba, distinguished professor of sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center. "It's the fear of the undermining the economic position of 'the native majority,' and also the fear of being swamped demographically by new groups that are racially and culturally different from the mainstream."



Its the same old playbook used against Irish and Italians that they are using today. I'm sure there were even manesque women like Ann Coulter talking about we need to build a fence then too


Read more From the Archives: The 'Hopeless Burden' of Immigration

Soooooooo, how many people are we talking about back then? A million? Two? How about 4 million from 1880 to 1920. They comprised 10 percent of the total foreign population in the US. And....they were the Mexicans of the era. They worked cheap and took jobs away from the lower classes who couldn't work that cheaply.

However, lets' look at the differences....they almost ALL began to learn English and worked harder than hell to assimilate to the US. They didn't decide that they would only speak their native language and follow their culture instead of becoming Americans.

They adapted to the laws of the US and abandoned the laws of Italy (except for the Mafia of course, they maintained the old ways) they never once tried to push their laws on us.

Yes, superficially the two times are similar, but when you look deeper the differences are glaring.

 

[Kondor3]

An 1896 lament about Italians and Eastern Europeans sounds eerily familiar today

The difference being that Italians and Eastern Europeans had to cross the Atlantic Ocean to get here, and to through a screening process.

Whereas the objects of the present exercise need merely hop a fence or wade a river-ford or jump in the back of a truck for a short ride.

Consequently, the objects of the present exercise can get here in vastly larger numbers.

Not a good thing.

And, back then, we still had land for the taking, and jobs for everyone who wanted one.

Not so much, anymore.

We are now a nation of 330,000,000, and no longer require large-scale immigration.

Different times... different circumstances... different goals... different resources.

Apples and oranges.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Every situation is different but what's nit different is the bs reasons they used to oppose immigration then and now.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Every situation is different but what's nit different is the bs reasons they used to oppose immigration then and now.

Trump should come out against the 1965 immigration act next!

 

[peach174]

In 1896, Ellis Island was just four years old, but already more than 1 million immigrants had entered the United States through its port. In the coming years, the center would process 12 million people seeking a new home in America -- 69 percent of whom were from Eastern, Central, or Southern Europe. The demographics of the country were changing, much to the fear of some.

In an essay titled "Restriction of Immigration," Atlantic author Francis A. Walker took issue with the "vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry" from Europe immigrating to America. His argument: increasing foreign-born populations would put a "hopeless burden on our country," and take work away from native-born citizens. He writes:

No longer it is a matter of course that that ever industrious and temperate man can find work in the United States...When the country was flooded with ignorant and unskilled foreigners, who could do nothing but the lowest kind of labor, Americans instinctively shrank from the contact and the competition thus offered to them. So long as manual labor, in whatever field, was to be done by all, each in his place, there was no revolt at it; but when working on railroads and canals became the sign of a want of education and of a low social condition, our own people gave it up, and left it to those who were able to do that, and nothing better.

Sound familiar?

The anxiety about immigration in the early 20th century hits a lot of the same notes as the anxiety about immigration today does," says Richard Alba, distinguished professor of sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center. "It's the fear of the undermining the economic position of 'the native majority,' and also the fear of being swamped demographically by new groups that are racially and culturally different from the mainstream."



Its the same old playbook used against Irish and Italians that they are using today. I'm sure there were even manesque women like Ann Coulter talking about we need to build a fence then too


Read more From the Archives: The 'Hopeless Burden' of Immigration

and the point is....


they came in legally, thru an approved immigration point?


I dont' see a problem with that.

And yet THEY DID see a problem with that and used the same BS reasons many are using now.

Big difference in coming here legally and today who are coming here illegally.
They came here legally and did not have social programs that they could use, which is what is luring the illegals today.

 

[ClosedCaption]

^^^yet they still objected using the same reasons.

 

[Correll]

In 1896, Ellis Island was just four years old, but already more than 1 million immigrants had entered the United States through its port. In the coming years, the center would process 12 million people seeking a new home in America -- 69 percent of whom were from Eastern, Central, or Southern Europe. The demographics of the country were changing, much to the fear of some.

In an essay titled "Restriction of Immigration," Atlantic author Francis A. Walker took issue with the "vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry" from Europe immigrating to America. His argument: increasing foreign-born populations would put a "hopeless burden on our country," and take work away from native-born citizens. He writes:

No longer it is a matter of course that that ever industrious and temperate man can find work in the United States...When the country was flooded with ignorant and unskilled foreigners, who could do nothing but the lowest kind of labor, Americans instinctively shrank from the contact and the competition thus offered to them. So long as manual labor, in whatever field, was to be done by all, each in his place, there was no revolt at it; but when working on railroads and canals became the sign of a want of education and of a low social condition, our own people gave it up, and left it to those who were able to do that, and nothing better.

Sound familiar?

The anxiety about immigration in the early 20th century hits a lot of the same notes as the anxiety about immigration today does," says Richard Alba, distinguished professor of sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center. "It's the fear of the undermining the economic position of 'the native majority,' and also the fear of being swamped demographically by new groups that are racially and culturally different from the mainstream."



Its the same old playbook used against Irish and Italians that they are using today. I'm sure there were even manesque women like Ann Coulter talking about we need to build a fence then too


Read more From the Archives: The 'Hopeless Burden' of Immigration

And in the mid 1800s it was about the Irish and in the later 1800s, Asians, and after the WWI it was about southern Europeans. Throughout American history calls for immigration controls have always been about xenophobia and the majority group always being fearful of being supplanted by another if too many were allowed to settle here.

So, no real problems with any of that immigration? All roses and rainbows?

 

[Correll]

Do we really need more cheap unskilled labor? Are the mills running 3 shifts a day?

I keep hearing that we need a more educated workforce...

Is that just stuff people say that I am not supposed to bring up again?

 

[bucs90]

In 1896, Ellis Island was just four years old, but already more than 1 million immigrants had entered the United States through its port. In the coming years, the center would process 12 million people seeking a new home in America -- 69 percent of whom were from Eastern, Central, or Southern Europe. The demographics of the country were changing, much to the fear of some.

In an essay titled "Restriction of Immigration," Atlantic author Francis A. Walker took issue with the "vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry" from Europe immigrating to America. His argument: increasing foreign-born populations would put a "hopeless burden on our country," and take work away from native-born citizens. He writes:

No longer it is a matter of course that that ever industrious and temperate man can find work in the United States...When the country was flooded with ignorant and unskilled foreigners, who could do nothing but the lowest kind of labor, Americans instinctively shrank from the contact and the competition thus offered to them. So long as manual labor, in whatever field, was to be done by all, each in his place, there was no revolt at it; but when working on railroads and canals became the sign of a want of education and of a low social condition, our own people gave it up, and left it to those who were able to do that, and nothing better.

Sound familiar?

The anxiety about immigration in the early 20th century hits a lot of the same notes as the anxiety about immigration today does," says Richard Alba, distinguished professor of sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center. "It's the fear of the undermining the economic position of 'the native majority,' and also the fear of being swamped demographically by new groups that are racially and culturally different from the mainstream."



Its the same old playbook used against Irish and Italians that they are using today. I'm sure there were even manesque women like Ann Coulter talking about we need to build a fence then too


Read more From the Archives: The 'Hopeless Burden' of Immigration

Soooooooo, how many people are we talking about back then? A million? Two? How about 4 million from 1880 to 1920. They comprised 10 percent of the total foreign population in the US. And....they were the Mexicans of the era. They worked cheap and took jobs away from the lower classes who couldn't work that cheaply.

However, lets' look at the differences....they almost ALL began to learn English and worked harder than hell to assimilate to the US. They didn't decide that they would only speak their native language and follow their culture instead of becoming Americans.

They adapted to the laws of the US and abandoned the laws of Italy (except for the Mafia of course, they maintained the old ways) they never once tried to push their laws on us.

Yes, superficially the two times are similar, but when you look deeper the differences are glaring.

They assimilated and work their asses off? And lived within their means and saved and sacrificed? No no no. They had white privilege.

 

[Godboy]

Notice how they still succeeded to convince everyone they were cool in the end? Black culture could take some lessons from them.

 

[Coyote]

difference today is that its the next door neighbors that are invading on foot and other means . He11 , their wittle kids invade from neighboring countries all by themselves which costs Americans . And then the next door neigbors get citizenship and a vote eventually to take more from the Americans . Italians , he11 , they could be stopped at entry and sent back to Italy at Ellis island .

The only difference between then and now - is ethnicity. Everything else is the same. The same complaints, the same demands for deportations and restrictions. The same claims that they refuse to assimilate, bring in diseases, overbreed, etc.

The same.

 

[Coyote]

In 1896, Ellis Island was just four years old, but already more than 1 million immigrants had entered the United States through its port. In the coming years, the center would process 12 million people seeking a new home in America -- 69 percent of whom were from Eastern, Central, or Southern Europe. The demographics of the country were changing, much to the fear of some.

In an essay titled "Restriction of Immigration," Atlantic author Francis A. Walker took issue with the "vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry" from Europe immigrating to America. His argument: increasing foreign-born populations would put a "hopeless burden on our country," and take work away from native-born citizens. He writes:

No longer it is a matter of course that that ever industrious and temperate man can find work in the United States...When the country was flooded with ignorant and unskilled foreigners, who could do nothing but the lowest kind of labor, Americans instinctively shrank from the contact and the competition thus offered to them. So long as manual labor, in whatever field, was to be done by all, each in his place, there was no revolt at it; but when working on railroads and canals became the sign of a want of education and of a low social condition, our own people gave it up, and left it to those who were able to do that, and nothing better.

Sound familiar?

The anxiety about immigration in the early 20th century hits a lot of the same notes as the anxiety about immigration today does," says Richard Alba, distinguished professor of sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center. "It's the fear of the undermining the economic position of 'the native majority,' and also the fear of being swamped demographically by new groups that are racially and culturally different from the mainstream."



Its the same old playbook used against Irish and Italians that they are using today. I'm sure there were even manesque women like Ann Coulter talking about we need to build a fence then too


Read more From the Archives: The 'Hopeless Burden' of Immigration

Soooooooo, how many people are we talking about back then? A million? Two? How about 4 million from 1880 to 1920. They comprised 10 percent of the total foreign population in the US. And....they were the Mexicans of the era. They worked cheap and took jobs away from the lower classes who couldn't work that cheaply.

However, lets' look at the differences....they almost ALL began to learn English and worked harder than hell to assimilate to the US. They didn't decide that they would only speak their native language and follow their culture instead of becoming Americans.

They adapted to the laws of the US and abandoned the laws of Italy (except for the Mafia of course, they maintained the old ways) they never once tried to push their laws on us.

Yes, superficially the two times are similar, but when you look deeper the differences are glaring.

Not really.

The first generation did not always assimilate so well. They had their own communities, even their own language papers and stores - Yiddish, Italian, Russian, Chinese - you heard of China Town and Little Italy. Typically, the second generation picked up the good language skills and the culture. They maintained many aspects of their own culture that in turn enriched ours. Each succeeding generation became more "American" - then, and now.

In terms of breaking the law...well, what is different between then and now? Who's trying to push "their laws" on us? There are criminal gangs now, but there were then: Irish, East European, Jewish, Russian, Italian....poverty breeds criminality.

 

[pismoe]

well , you have your Opinion and I have mine . The problem is proximity of the invaders coming to the USA . Even wittle baby invaders invade , get supported by taxpayers and then eventually get a vote to gain more Welfare / support or help paid for by taxpayers . Italians couldn't easily stream into the USA in the early 1900s . Now the invaders just walk across the border Coyote !!

 

[Coyote]

well , you have your Opinion and I have mine . The problem is proximity of the invaders coming to the USA . Even wittle baby invaders invade , get supported by taxpayers and then eventually get a vote to gain more Welfare / support or help paid for by taxpayers . Italians couldn't easily stream into the USA in the early 1900s . Now the invaders just walk across the border Coyote !!

You call them "invaders".

I call them "people".

They are no different than the people who came over in the turn of the century. And the rhetoric is no different.

 

[pismoe]

fortunately Mr. Trump a possible new president kinda shares my opinion . At least immigration is now a hot topic thanks to Mr. Trump Coyote .

 

[Coyote]

fortunately Mr. Trump a possible new president kinda shares my opinion . At least immigration is now a hot topic thanks to Mr. Trump Coyote .

Trump does wonders for my popcorn concession

 

[pismoe]

as I already said , you have your opinion and I have my opinion . Time to fight it out politically and Trump has started the fight Coyote !!

 

[guno]

Those European and Italian immigrants who were dirt poor.......did their white privilege help them?????

Yes it did, once they were brought into the fold. That is of course unless you don't consider them white now.

They arrived after the civil war. Their ancestors from their homelands...obviously didn't own slaves.

How come their descendants now must hold blame for slavery and white privilege? ?????

They aren't to blame for slavery silly. But they do have white privilege. For example, they weren't considered white at first but now you ask about their white privilege..as if to say, they ARE white. See how things change?

Jew weren't considered white until the 1940's

 

[Jroc]

In 1896, Ellis Island was just four years old, but already more than 1 million immigrants had entered the United States through its port. In the coming years, the center would process 12 million people seeking a new home in America -- 69 percent of whom were from Eastern, Central, or Southern Europe. The demographics of the country were changing, much to the fear of some.

In an essay titled "Restriction of Immigration," Atlantic author Francis A. Walker took issue with the "vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry" from Europe immigrating to America. His argument: increasing foreign-born populations would put a "hopeless burden on our country," and take work away from native-born citizens. He writes:

No longer it is a matter of course that that ever industrious and temperate man can find work in the United States...When the country was flooded with ignorant and unskilled foreigners, who could do nothing but the lowest kind of labor, Americans instinctively shrank from the contact and the competition thus offered to them. So long as manual labor, in whatever field, was to be done by all, each in his place, there was no revolt at it; but when working on railroads and canals became the sign of a want of education and of a low social condition, our own people gave it up, and left it to those who were able to do that, and nothing better.

Sound familiar?

The anxiety about immigration in the early 20th century hits a lot of the same notes as the anxiety about immigration today does," says Richard Alba, distinguished professor of sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center. "It's the fear of the undermining the economic position of 'the native majority,' and also the fear of being swamped demographically by new groups that are racially and culturally different from the mainstream."



Its the same old playbook used against Irish and Italians that they are using today. I'm sure there were even manesque women like Ann Coulter talking about we need to build a fence then too


Read more From the Archives: The 'Hopeless Burden' of Immigration

"Richard Alba" another leftist moron. First of all, Ellis island was legal immigration. Second those immigrants had to prove they were not sickly, and would be a benefit to this country. Many were rejected

While admission decisions were made by the Immigration Service (IS), the law required medical inspection of immigrants by the United States Public Health Service (PHS). When a PHS medical officer formally diagnosed an immigrant with a disease or defect, throwing his or her admissibility into question, that individual was considered "medically certified." The law required the PHS to issue a medical certificate to those who suffered from a "loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease" [1]. Exclusion of those diagnosed with infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, venereal disease, trachoma, and favus was mandatory [2].

The PHS defined its mission rather narrowly—preventing the entrance of disease to the nation—but PHS officers interpreted their job more broadly. In their eyes, the goal was to prevent the entrance of undesirable people—those "who would not make good citizens" [3]. In the context of industrial-era America, immigrants who would wear out prematurely, requiring care and maintenance rather than supplying manpower, would not make "good" citizens. By 1903 the PHS had elaborated two major categories: "Class A" loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases and "Class B" diseases and conditions that would render an immigrant "likely to become a public charge." A subset of Class A conditions included mental conditions such as insanity and epilepsy

.

Inspection on the "Line"

Medical examination centered on the "line," which became shorthand for the set of techniques and procedures that medical officers used to examine thousands of immigrants quickly. Ellis Island—where roughly 70 percent of immigrants entered the United States —set the standard.After an arriving ship passed the quarantine inspection in New York Harbor, IS and PHS examiners boarded and examined all first- and second-class passengers as the ship proceeded up the harbor [4]. Upon docking, PHS officers transferred steerage or third-class passengers to Ellis Island by barge. Proceeding one after the other and lugging heavy baggage, prospective immigrants entered the station and moved slowly through a series of gated passageways resembling cattle pens. As they reached the end of the line, they slowly filed past one or more PHS officers who, at a glance, surveyed them for a variety of serious and minor diseases and conditions, finally turning back their eyelids with their fingers or a buttonhook to check for trachoma.

VM -- Medical Examination of Immigrants at Ellis Island, Apr 08 ... Virtual Mentor

 

[Jroc]

well , you have your Opinion and I have mine . The problem is proximity of the invaders coming to the USA . Even wittle baby invaders invade , get supported by taxpayers and then eventually get a vote to gain more Welfare / support or help paid for by taxpayers . Italians couldn't easily stream into the USA in the early 1900s . Now the invaders just walk across the border Coyote !!

You call them "invaders".

I call them "people".

They are no different than the people who came over in the turn of the century. And the rhetoric is no different.

Follow the law, is that a hard concept for you?