Discussion:
What does U.S. immigration policy look like over the last 100 years if WWI & WWII never occur?
(too old to reply)
WolfBear
2017-10-07 20:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Had both World War I and World War II never occurred, what would U.S. immigration policy have looked like over the last 100 years (well, 103 years to be precise--1914 to 2017)?

For the record, in our TL, there were bills to implement a literacy test as a requirement for immigrants to the U.S. in both 1913 and 1915, but they got vetoed by Presidents Taft and Wilson (with Congress narrowly failing to override both of these vetoes). Then, when President Wilson vetoed a similar bill in 1917, the U.S. Congress overrode his veto. Four years later, in 1921, the U.S. passed the Emergency Quota Act and then three years later passed the even harsher Immigration Act of 1924 (which severely reduced immigration--especially from Southern and Eastern Europe). Then, 41 years later, the 1965 Immigration Act was opened and large numbers of people from developing countries began to immigrate to the U.S.

Basically, the paragraph above explains the developments in regards to this in our TL. However, what would developments in regards to this issue (U.S. immigration policy) have looked like in a TL with no WWI and with no WWII?

Any thoughts on this?
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-08 04:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
However, what would developments in regards to this
issue (U.S. immigration policy) have looked like in
a TL with no WWI and with no WWII?
US immigration was very high in 1903-1914 (about 980K/year)
then dropped to 235K/year for 1915-1919, and rebounded to
550K/year in 1920-1924. The Immigration Act of 1924
_significantly_ reduced that to about 295K/year in 1925-1930.
But that was still _substantial_ immigration. When the
Depression took hold immigration dropped _severely_ - to
about 50K/year in 1931-1939.

Absent WW I, high immigration would have continued,
probably leading to Wilson's veto of the literacy
bill being overridden in 1915, and to a restrictive
act in 1917-1919. I suspect that the Republicans were
more restrictionist than the Democrats at this time.

Though it would be interesting to _know_... Wiki sez
the 1924 Act passed with little opposition. One would
think that Democrats favored immigration, given their
predominant support among urban immigrants, but then
the great power base of the Democrats was the South,
which was nearly devoid of immigrants. The "eugenic"
tendencies of many "Progressive" Republicans might
mean support of the restrictions on "undesirable"
immigrants... But the Progressive base of support in
the West and Midwest included lots of immigrants in
those heavily-immigrant states. But OTOH those
immigrants were mostly from northern and western
Europe, and the Act favored those countries.

And some of the urban immigrants were Republicans,
too: e.g. Boleslaus Monkiewicz, US Representative at
Large from Connecticut (1939-1941, 1943-1945).
(Monkiewicz was actually 2nd generation, as was La
Guardia; Rep. Julius Kahn of San Francisco was born in
Germany.)

So it is really foggy how sentiment was divided.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
WolfBear
2017-10-09 02:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
However, what would developments in regards to this
issue (U.S. immigration policy) have looked like in
a TL with no WWI and with no WWII?
US immigration was very high in 1903-1914 (about 980K/year)
then dropped to 235K/year for 1915-1919, and rebounded to
550K/year in 1920-1924. The Immigration Act of 1924
_significantly_ reduced that to about 295K/year in 1925-1930.
But that was still _substantial_ immigration. When the
Depression took hold immigration dropped _severely_ - to
about 50K/year in 1931-1939.
Yep--however, even in the first couple of decades after the end of WWII, immigration wasn't that high.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Absent WW I, high immigration would have continued,
probably leading to Wilson's veto of the literacy
bill being overridden in 1915,
This is possible--indeed, I think that the margin was just four votes in regards to this. Could a couple additional years of high immigration have made the difference in regards to this? Perhaps.
Post by Rich Rostrom
and to a restrictive
act in 1917-1919. I suspect that the Republicans were
more restrictionist than the Democrats at this time.
That I'm not so sure about. After all, there might first be a desire to see how well the literacy test would work.

Also, the aftermath of World War I created conditions where millions of Europeans rapidly wanted to immigrate to the United States; Yes, this was also the case to a large extent in the pre-World War I years, but I wonder if WWI and its aftermath gave this situation a matter of urgency that it did not otherwise have. (This is why I don't think that there will be anything equivalent to the 1921 Emergency Quota Act in this TL.)

Anyway, my bet is that an even more restrictive immigration law (in comparison to 1917's literacy test) would be passed in either the late 1920s or early 1930s in this TL. However, given that Senator Dillingham (the head of the Dillingham Commission) initially proposed a *five percent* limit (as in, 5% of all people born in a particular country who were in the U.S. in 1910) on immigrants, this five percent limit might be adopted in this TL in place of the two percent limit of our TL's 1924 Immigration Act:

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9290090n&chunk.id=d0e7845&toc.id=d0e7838&brand=ucpress

Also, was there as much hostility towards Italians and Jews in the pre-World War I years as there was in the post-World War I years? Basically, I am trying to figure out if the immigration system would still be biased towards Northern and Western Europeans in this TL--and if so, to what extent.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Though it would be interesting to _know_... Wiki sez
the 1924 Act passed with little opposition. One would
think that Democrats favored immigration, given their
predominant support among urban immigrants, but then
the great power base of the Democrats was the South,
which was nearly devoid of immigrants. The "eugenic"
tendencies of many "Progressive" Republicans might
mean support of the restrictions on "undesirable"
immigrants... But the Progressive base of support in
the West and Midwest included lots of immigrants in
those heavily-immigrant states. But OTOH those
immigrants were mostly from northern and western
Europe, and the Act favored those countries.
Yeah, this seems about right. Indeed, my hunch is that urban Democrats from the North would oppose immigration restriction while Southern Democrats would support it and while Republicans (other than perhaps urban Republicans--whose views on this might be similar to that of urban Democrats) would support immigration restriction if it didn't hurt Northern and Western Europeans too much.

Of course, more data in regards to this would certainly be nice. Indeed, I'll see if I can find anything in regards to this.
Post by Rich Rostrom
And some of the urban immigrants were Republicans,
too: e.g. Boleslaus Monkiewicz, US Representative at
Large from Connecticut (1939-1941, 1943-1945).
(Monkiewicz was actually 2nd generation, as was La
Guardia; Rep. Julius Kahn of San Francisco was born in
Germany.)
Yeah, this could give an impetus to some urban Republicans to oppose immigration restrictionism in this TL.
Post by Rich Rostrom
So it is really foggy how sentiment was divided.
Yeah--I mean, the trend appears to have been a very slow movement towards immigration restrictionism, but I suspect that World War I and its aftermath significantly accelerated this process.

Also, there is one additional issue which you didn't address here, Rich--if the U.S. still largely closes its doors to immigrants either in the 1920s or 1930s in this TL, how long do you think before the U.S. would open its doors again to immigrants? In our TL, this came with the 1965 Immigration Act, but in this TL, there won't be either a WWI or a WWII and thus the civil rights movement--of which immigration reform was a(n underlooked) part--might be significantly delayed in this TL.

Thus, could we see something like the 1965 Immigration Act be passed around the year 2000 in this TL?
Post by Rich Rostrom
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
a425couple
2017-10-09 19:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
However, what would developments in regards to this
issue (U.S. immigration policy) have looked like in
a TL with no WWI and with no WWII?
US immigration was very high in 1903-1914 (about 980K/year)
then dropped to 235K/year for 1915-1919, and rebounded to
550K/year in 1920-1924. The Immigration Act of 1924
_significantly_ reduced that to about 295K/year in 1925-1930.
But that was still _substantial_ immigration. When the
Depression took hold immigration dropped _severely_ - to
about 50K/year in 1931-1939.
Yep--however, even in the first couple of decades after the end of WWII, immigration wasn't that high.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Absent WW I, high immigration would have continued,
probably leading to Wilson's veto of the literacy
bill being overridden in 1915,
This is possible--indeed, I think that the margin was just four votes in regards to this. Could a couple additional years of high immigration have made the difference in regards to this? Perhaps.
Post by Rich Rostrom
and to a restrictive
act in 1917-1919. I suspect that the Republicans were
more restrictionist than the Democrats at this time.
----
Post by WolfBear
Yeah, this seems about right. Indeed, my hunch is that urban Democrats from the North would oppose immigration restriction while Southern Democrats would support it and while Republicans (other than perhaps urban Republicans--whose views on this might be similar to that of urban Democrats) would support immigration restriction if it didn't hurt Northern and Western Europeans too much.
Of course, more data in regards to this would certainly be nice. Indeed, I'll see if I can find anything in regards to this.
Post by Rich Rostrom
And some of the urban immigrants were Republicans,
too: e.g. Boleslaus Monkiewicz, US Representative at
Large from Connecticut (1939-1941, 1943-1945).
(Monkiewicz was actually 2nd generation, as was La
Guardia; Rep. Julius Kahn of San Francisco was born in
Germany.)
Yeah, this could give an impetus to some urban Republicans to oppose immigration restrictionism in this TL.
I'm uneasy about some of your assumptions regarding partisanship.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota
"A growing population and political concerns (admitting two states
meant having four new senators for the Republican Party) caused
Dakota Territory to be divided in half and President Benjamin
Harrison signed proclamations formally admitting South Dakota
and North Dakota to the union on November 2, 1889.[69][70]
Harrison had the papers shuffled to obscure which one was signed
first and the order went unrecorded.[70][71]"
a425couple
2017-10-09 02:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Had both World War I and World War II never occurred, what would U.S. immigration policy have looked like over the last 100 years (well, 103 years to be precise--1914 to 2017)?
For the record, in our TL, there were bills to implement a literacy test as a requirement for immigrants to the U.S. in both 1913 and 1915, but they got vetoed by Presidents Taft and Wilson (with Congress narrowly failing to override both of these vetoes).
Any thoughts on this?
Ahh, yeah. I have a few thoughts.
Whatever you think, when my grandmother, an unmarried
22 year old female immigrated to the USA in 1904,
She was required to read and write
(however, they did not require that it be in English!)
She had to demonstrate she was healthy, legs, arms & hands worked.
That she did not have an eye disease.
That she was NOT an anarchist.
That she was NOT a polygamist.
That she had funds to travel to her intended final destination
($10.00 = about the train fare from Boston to Dakotas.)
That she knew a name of someone at that location who could
give her advise etc.

And, Wolf Bear, you seem to be missing some VERY important
facts.
The USA, America, really needed productive labor.
We had huge grasslands (from Minn., North & South Dakota,
Eastern Montana, Iowa, and Nebraska) that were sitting
mostly totally unused. It was only when homesteaders
were given/earned/tilled the land that the country
got anything worthwhile from it.
There were many other areas that labor was needed,
for example they knew where iron ore and coal were,
but needed laborers to actually extract it.

And she immediately got a homestead, started improving it,
and worked seasonally as a cooks assistant for a threshing
crew to earn money for the improvements.
The Old Man
2017-10-09 12:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by WolfBear
Had both World War I and World War II never occurred, what would U.S. immigration policy have looked like over the last 100 years (well, 103 years to be precise--1914 to 2017)?
For the record, in our TL, there were bills to implement a literacy test as a requirement for immigrants to the U.S. in both 1913 and 1915, but they got vetoed by Presidents Taft and Wilson (with Congress narrowly failing to override both of these vetoes).
Any thoughts on this?
Ahh, yeah. I have a few thoughts.
Whatever you think, when my grandmother, an unmarried
22 year old female immigrated to the USA in 1904,
She was required to read and write
(however, they did not require that it be in English!)
She had to demonstrate she was healthy, legs, arms & hands worked.
That she did not have an eye disease.
That she was NOT an anarchist.
That she was NOT a polygamist.
That she had funds to travel to her intended final destination
($10.00 = about the train fare from Boston to Dakotas.)
That she knew a name of someone at that location who could
give her advise etc.
And, Wolf Bear, you seem to be missing some VERY important
facts.
The USA, America, really needed productive labor.
We had huge grasslands (from Minn., North & South Dakota,
Eastern Montana, Iowa, and Nebraska) that were sitting
mostly totally unused. It was only when homesteaders
were given/earned/tilled the land that the country
got anything worthwhile from it.
There were many other areas that labor was needed,
for example they knew where iron ore and coal were,
but needed laborers to actually extract it.
And she immediately got a homestead, started improving it,
and worked seasonally as a cooks assistant for a threshing
crew to earn money for the improvements.
This is 100% accurate. My Maternal Grandfather came here in 1904 as a thirty-year-old Master Blacksmith and immediately got a job on the Pennsylvania railroad as a smith (what would now be called a welder) in the shops in Altoona, PA. He worked there until he died in 1941. Two years after he arrived, he had enough money to bring his wife and two daughters (My mom was born just before he left) over to join him. Grandma didn't learn English until her daughters were in school - and then she learned it from them.
The stories of the immigrants can be fascinating; it wasn't always "The Jungle".

Regards,
John Braungart
The Horny Goat
2017-10-09 17:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 05:04:11 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
Post by a425couple
And she immediately got a homestead, started improving it,
and worked seasonally as a cooks assistant for a threshing
crew to earn money for the improvements.
This is 100% accurate. My Maternal Grandfather came here in 1904 as a thirty-year-old Master Blacksmith and immediately got a job on the Pennsylvania railroad as a smith (what would now be called a welder) in the shops in Altoona, PA. He worked there until he died in 1941. Two years after he arrived, he had enough money to bring his wife and two daughters (My mom was born just before he left) over to join him. Grandma didn't learn English until her daughters were in school - and then she learned it from them.
The stories of the immigrants can be fascinating; it wasn't always "The Jungle".
North America is full of such stories. I have a great-grandfather who
was an engineer on the Union Pacific - for 60 years. My in-laws were
homesteaders in northern Saskatchewan during wartime while my maternal
grandmother's family homesteaded in the Spokane, WA area while mostly
turned to logging. My paternal grandfather's family was the "black
sheep" of both early (e.g. pre 1750) Rhinelanders and a "Mayflower
family".

In short what you are describing is a key part of the national myth of
both the United States and Canada.

(One of the funniest experiences of my life was giving a speech to my
Toastmasters club which dealt with the War of 1812 and expressed an
extreme British / Canadian viewpoint on the war. It would be fair to
call it a rant. The point being is that I do have ancestors who fought
in that war ... all on the American side since my Canadian forebears
didn't emigrate until the early 20th century!)
a425couple
2017-10-09 19:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by a425couple
Post by WolfBear
Had both World War I and World War II never occurred, what would U.S. immigration policy have looked like over the last 100 years (well, 103 years to be precise--1914 to 2017)?
For the record, in our TL, there were bills to implement a literacy test as a requirement for immigrants to the U.S. in both 1913 and 1915, but they got vetoed by Presidents Taft and Wilson (with Congress narrowly failing to override both of these vetoes).
Any thoughts on this?
Ahh, yeah. I have a few thoughts.
Whatever you think, when my grandmother, an unmarried
22 year old female immigrated to the USA in 1904,
She was required to read and write
(however, they did not require that it be in English!)
She had to demonstrate she was healthy, legs, arms & hands worked.
That she did not have an eye disease.
That she was NOT an anarchist.
That she was NOT a polygamist.
That she had funds to travel to her intended final destination
($10.00 = about the train fare from Boston to Dakotas.)
That she knew a name of someone at that location who could
give her advise etc.
And, Wolf Bear, you seem to be missing some VERY important
facts.
The USA, America, really needed productive labor.
We had huge grasslands (from Minn., North & South Dakota,
Eastern Montana, Iowa, and Nebraska) that were sitting
mostly totally unused. It was only when homesteaders
were given/earned/tilled the land that the country
got anything worthwhile from it.
There were many other areas that labor was needed,
for example they knew where iron ore and coal were,
but needed laborers to actually extract it.
And she immediately got a homestead, started improving it,
and worked seasonally as a cooks assistant for a threshing
crew to earn money for the improvements.
This is 100% accurate. My Maternal Grandfather came here in 1904 as a thirty-year-old Master Blacksmith and immediately got a job on the Pennsylvania railroad as a smith (what would now be called a welder) in the shops in Altoona, PA. He worked there until he died in 1941. Two years after he arrived, he had enough money to bring his wife and two daughters (My mom was born just before he left) over to join him. Grandma didn't learn English until her daughters were in school - and then she learned it from them.
The stories of the immigrants can be fascinating; it wasn't always "The Jungle".
Regards, John Braungart
Thanks John.
Other branches of my family have similar pasts.

But meanwhile, back at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota
Historical population
Census Pop. %±
1870 2,405 —
1880 36,909 1,434.7%
1890 190,983 417.4%
1900 319,146 67.1%
1910 577,056 80.8%
1920 646,872 12.1%
1930 680,845 5.3%
1940 641,935 −5.7%
1950 619,636 −3.5%
1960 632,446 2.1%
1970 617,761 −2.3%
1980 652,717 5.7%
1990 638,800 −2.1%

The great prairie was flat, treeless, and windy.
"North Dakota was a known popular destination for immigrant farmers
and general laborers and their families, mostly from Norway, Sweden,
Germany and the United Kingdom. Much of this settlement gravitated
throughout the western side of the Red River Valley, as was similarly
seen in South Dakota and in a parallel manner in Minnesota. This area
is well known for its fertile lands. By the outbreak of the First
World War, this was among North America's richest farming regions"
The Horny Goat
2017-10-10 16:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
"North Dakota was a known popular destination for immigrant farmers
and general laborers and their families, mostly from Norway, Sweden,
Germany and the United Kingdom. Much of this settlement gravitated
throughout the western side of the Red River Valley, as was similarly
seen in South Dakota and in a parallel manner in Minnesota. This area
is well known for its fertile lands. By the outbreak of the First
World War, this was among North America's richest farming regions"
Just curious - was the Red River valley also a source for Mennonites?
(Who usually get included in the German quota regardless of which
country they actually left to come to America).

Reason I ask is that Mennonites play a very large part in the
agriculture of the Red River valley extending south from Winnipeg to
the Canadian/US border which is directly north of the North Dakota
lands you're referring to.
a425couple
2017-10-11 02:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by a425couple
"North Dakota was a known popular destination for immigrant farmers
and general laborers and their families, mostly from Norway, Sweden,
Germany and the United Kingdom. Much of this settlement gravitated
throughout the western side of the Red River Valley, as was similarly
seen in South Dakota and in a parallel manner in Minnesota. This area
is well known for its fertile lands. By the outbreak of the First
World War, this was among North America's richest farming regions"
Just curious - was the Red River valley also a source for Mennonites?
I've no idea. The good, rich and fertile lands near the
Red River (Red River of the North) had been taken earlier.
My grandmother, her two brothers, and one more sister
(and also 3 of their cousins) settled over 150 miles west
of there.
Post by The Horny Goat
Just curious - was the Red River valley also a source for Mennonites?
(Who usually get included in the German quota regardless of which
country they actually left to come to America).
Reason I ask is that Mennonites play a very large part in the
agriculture of the Red River valley extending south from Winnipeg to
the Canadian/US border which is directly north of the North Dakota
lands you're referring to.
Hmmm. Do not know. What can I figure out?
I go to Google, Google Maps, and go over to eastern North Dakota,
and western Minn. (Red River area) and in the search box,
type in = Mennonite North Dakota.
It shows Mennonite churches near Minot, near Cando,
straight south of Rugby, and over in Minn near Detroit Lakes.
So,,,, does not appear to be all that many in the Red River
area in the US ND or Minnesota.

But you are exactly correct in that there are a great number
of Mennonite Churches reasonably near the Red River in Manitoba,
especially close to Winnipeg.

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite
"Secondary schools[edit]
This list of secondary Mennonite Schools is not an exhaustive list. --
Canada[edit]
Mennonite Brethren Collegiate Institute, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Mennonite Collegiate Institute, Gretna, Manitoba
Mennonite Educational Institute, Abbotsford, British Columbia
Rockway Mennonite Collegiate, Kitchener, Ontario
Rosthern Junior College, Rosthern, Saskatchewan
Westgate Mennonite Collegiate, Winnipeg, Manitoba"

So, 3 schools in Manitoba, where as none in North Dakota,
only one in South Dakota, and none in Minnesota.
So, it would seem they are denser in Canada than in US.

They also have 3 colleges in Manitoba, and while plenty (9?)
in USA, none in Dakotas or Minnesota.

Loading...