Nativism In 1920s

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the United States gained many new citizens – immigrants from other countries in search of the American Dream. However, the immigrants’ path to the American Dream was hindered by the prejudice they faced from native-born Americans. This prejudice, also known as nativism, depended on stereotypes that portrayed the immigrants as subservient and justified discriminatory actions. The “otherness” of the immigrants was further confirmed with Social Darwinism, a twisted extension of survival of the fittest that asserted failure as natural selection. Since many immigrants had a difficult time finding success due to cultural barriers and the already prevalent nativism, Social Darwinism allowed prejudice towards

Immigrants were also judged for the success they achieved, both in their home country and in America. In a debate about immigration restrictions published in The Way We Lived, Democratic Representative James V. McClintic said, “Practically all of them were weak, small of stature, poorly clad, emaciated, and in a condition which showed that the environment surrounding them in their European homes were indeed very bad. It is for this reason that I say the class of immigrants coming to the shores of the United States at this time are not the type of people we want as citizens in this country,” (“Congress” 150). Many Americans like Representative McClintic viewed immigrants as inferior because they often came from poor backgrounds, which fed into the idea of Social Darwinism. In his article “The Taint of ‘Social Darwinism’”, Philip Kitcher describes Social Darwinism as a situation in which “…those people and those human achievements that are fittest – most beautiful, noble, wise, creative, virtuous, and so forth – will succeed in a fierce competition, so that, over time, humanity and its accomplishments will continually improve.” Using this idea, Americans could disregard the poor immigrants because, quite simply, they failed because they were supposed to.

James H. Patten, the chairman of the National Legislative Committee of the American Purity Federation, stated to Congress, “As I said a moment ago, the illiteracy test is not proposed as a means of excluding criminals, it is not offered as a substitute for existing laws debarring criminals, but as an additional selective and restrictive measure, and on the ground that, for an enlightened democracy such as we have, on the average, the man who can read and write is more likely to be better fitted for American citizenship than the one who cannot.” This quote both demonstrates the nativist opinions of many politicians, as well as one of the common anti-immigrant laws of the period: literacy tests. Literacy tests, although framed as a measure to improve society, meant that the United States only offered refuge to those immigrants who were literate in their native language, and that many poor immigrants who escaped to America for safety were no longer accepted. Another law, the Quota Acts of 1921 and 1924, stopped immigration from Asian countries and severely limited the number of immigrants from other countries. A political cartoon called “The Hyphenated American” from J.S. Pughe highlights the distaste many Americans held for allowing immigrants to vote. In Pughe’s cartoon, Uncle Sam looks on angrily as a line of