What if we went back to early 20th century immigration policy?

Great Debates
1

What bad things would happen? Let me tweak the question slightly: Of course, I don’t want to let everyone in the door except for Chinese, etc. Basically a “if you want in, and can meet certain very basic standards, in you go!”

When my grandparents migrated from Italy, they basically had to show up at Ellis Island without typhus, and in they came. It was their dream to become real Americans, and they worked hard to achieve that dream. That may be why even at my most conservative, I never could muster any animus toward undocumented migrant workers. If my kids were hungry, I’d do the same thing. My personal speculation is that the vast majority of people who want to participate in the American dream are people that we’d want here. But what do I know.

What parade of horribles would occur if we reverted to a similar policy? How could we guard against such harm by installing safeguards? Isn’t there some more liberal policy that isn’t founded on an irrational fear of foreign folks?

I realize this would require the infrastructure to accommodate such a change, and the question is simplistic in that regard. But, that said, why not? What’s stopping us except for political will?

2

Our borders are like the fences around a gated community; they only keep honest people out. No giant walls or armies or alligator-filled moats are ever going to change that. Unauthorized people (especially the dangerous ones) are always going to be able to get in. So why not make it easier for those that just want a better life to come here? At least we’ll have a better record of who is actually here and what we need to do to integrate the newcomers into our society. I’m still waiting for that taco truck on my corner.

3

Typhus would be a thing of the past!

4

Typhus is not a thing of the past not even in the U.S. It is rare. There was a typhus outbreak in Los Angeles in 2018 with more than 100 cases.

5

I think one legitimate issue is modern transportation. Traveling to the United States used to be a relatively difficult and expensive ship passage and that acted as something of a gatekeeper. In the 21st century, the cost of a plane ticket lets almost anyone physically come to America. So I don’t feel we should have completely open borders where we let anyone who shows up come in.

That said, our borders should be much more open than they are now. Immigrants are good for America and we should be letting in more of them. I also feel that our immigration policies should not be based on national origin. Every potential immigrant should have the same equal opportunity regardless of what country they’re emigrating from.

6

Our immigration policy should be a component of our overall economic goals and policies. If you place little to no restriction with the exception of disease, we will ultimately drive unemployment up. Today that may not neccasarily be a bad thing given the current tightness of our labor market. But in the future, it may be counter to our country’s economic goals and objectives.

Yes, over the long term that could be self correcting but generally our system of social safety nets is significantly better than many other countries, and long term unemployment may become a more permanent fixture that a more open immigration policy would be detrimental to.

7

I’m sorry, could you name some of these countries that have worse social safety nets than America does? I don’t doubt you are right about the numbers - there are many Somalias, Afghanistans, and Belaruses out there - but I’m wondering what nation, with a comparable economy to the US, has worse social safety nets, in your opinion.

8

I concur. Look, there is no downside.

I have worked on a project with migrant farm workers (some /many of which are undocumented). They are honest, hardworking, and want to do the jobs Americans wont or cant do. They pay taxes, they pay into SocSec and wont get any out.

If we let them in legally, the problems of illegal crossing, what with “mules”, drug smuggling, and people dying in the desert go away.

There is no downside, except to racists and bigots.

And I dont think we would be overwhelmed. They want work, and once all those jobs are taken, the stream will slow to a trickle.

Plus for us born here- cheaper produce. Maybe even other things cheaper, such as hotels, etc. Those in the Upper middle class could hire gardeners, house cleaners and the like, allowing stay at home spouses to get back into the workspaces.

Well, except places like Russia, North Korea, Iraq, etc. They are enemy nations. That doesnt mean no one from those places, but triple checked.

9

I wonder how much, if at all, removing most restrictions would increase the number of immigrants here at any given time. Would a more open policy actually attract more immigrants, or would it simply remove the onus of being undocumented from the numbers already here?

My guess would be a small initial increase followed by a gradual leveling out, but I have no way to support that.

10

Even better. Every time somebody leaves one of those countries and becomes an American, we get stronger and the other country gets weaker.

11

In the early 20th century I believe immigrants were checked for contagious disease, to the best ability of the time. I’d argue for continuing doing so; and for building sufficient comfortable holding areas for treatment before letting anyone contagious come beyond the holding areas.

And I think we’d be a lot more likely to be able to control for bringing in diseases – as well as other problems – if we didn’t have people dodging procedures because they have in practice no legal way to enter.

My maternal grandparents got in shortly before the rules changed, in the late 19-oughts. My paternal grandparents and my father got in during the early 1920’s with somewhat more difficulty – they had to come via Canada as Jews from Eastern Europe couldn’t come in directly; but there were still few limits on anyone coming from Canada. They’d most likely have been dead in 20 years if they hadn’t.

Without immigration, we’d be well below population replacement levels. That’s a much bigger danger to our economy as currently constructed.

Yup.

People are coming in for one (or both) of two reasons:

They’re in serious danger if they don’t; and/or they want jobs, and expect to find them here.

If the jobs aren’t here, the second category isn’t going to come. And the second category is most of the people.

Yes indeed.

A reasonable degree of checking for terrorists should be done, of course (and not only on people from those countries). But it’s not like we don’t grow terrorists at home.

12

China.
Shared link from NYTimes. The article describes how China is heading into a crisis because of its awful social safety net, which they are actually cutting funding to.

I’m for more liberalized immigration, but I can also look at history and see the difference between now and 1900.

Back then, the U.S. was a rapidly growing, newly-developing country, generating millions of available factory jobs. We are not creating new jobs except in the low-paying service industry which itself is facing a potential job loss crisis through AI and other automation.

Back then, immigrants were willing to accept any level of housing, and so the Lower East Side of NYC became more crowded than Calcutta, with multiple families living in single apartments in airless tenements. Today we are already in an unaffordable housing crisis because adequate affordable housing is not being built.

Back then, immigrants did mostly stay in the Northeast and Midwest because that’s where the jobs were. We’re already in yet another crisis because the job growth is in the South and Southwest, areas that should not add any additional people due to lack of water and risk of damage from climate change.

Back then, every community was in a race to build schools, but the idea of public high school was brand new and few people expected the majority of the population to graduate. (It was in fact 6.4%). Among our many crises today is the underfunding of public schools and the determination of some states to drive teachers away despite the necessity for high school and even college degrees for most jobs.

Back then, health care was next to nonexistent. Today health care is plentiful - if one has insurance. The insurance-less go without or use emergency rooms. The health care system is, yes, in crisis.

I’m too depressed to go on. Immigration was a success in the early 20th century because those involved were willing to accept conditions unthinkable today. Although they persist in some areas, and you can search for any number of stories about immigrants living in squalor. We want to eliminate that for those already here, not create it for millions more.

Infrastructure was mentioned by the OP. I’m trying to emphasize how difficult the issue will be, even with political will. We need immigrants but we need to solve crises for the present population. Can we do both at once? I believe in theory we can. But it’s basically an “if I were king” solution.

“the total foreign-born or immigrant population (legal and illegal) in the U.S. hit 47.9 million in September 2022 — a record high in American history” says the Center for Immigration Studies. That’s about 15% of the population or as high a percentage as it was at the beginning of the 20th century. We are already allowing in a gigantic number of immigrants; a number that is overshadowed in the public eye by the people seeking asylum at the border.

The U.S. is fabulously wealthy. We can do a lot of things. But there is also a lot of things that need to be done already. Balancing the two urges will forever be tricky.

13

North Korea, Russia, Iraq, most of Africa (but by no means all), and a good part of Central and South America… except on paper.

Basically for great social safety nets you are talking Western Europe and Scandinavia.

14

“America’s healthcare system is second only to Japan…Canada…Sweden…Great Britain…well, all of Europe. But you can thank your lucky stars we don’t live in Paraguay!”

15

Right, so, other than countries that don’t exactly make human rights a priority, like Russia or China, or countries that are much, much poorer than the US - who exactly do we have a better safety net in comparison to?

The US has a mediocre social safety net at best. Sure, we live in a world with many countries that have poor social safety nets, but that doesn’t mean that we should pretend that ours is actually solid.

16

We don’t do that for tourists from other countries. Why do it for migrants? In the era of jet travel, any contagious diseases from overseas are likely already here.

17

To nitpick, the Immigration Act of 1903 also excluded anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and “importers of prostitutes.”

18

I’m not @Omar_Little. At the risk of putting words in his mouth perhaps what was meant was

There are many countries with excess people vs. land and a shitty peon economy and a shitty social safety net. If the e.g. USA opens its borders to those folks it will be getting some people fleeing overpopulation in search of land and some people fleeing lack of good work who’re willing to work and people fleeing shitty social safety nets whose goal is to enjoy the US’s comparatively better safety nets.

The point isn’t that e.g. Swedes would come here for the unemployment insurance, worker’s comp, and SNAP. But e.g. Guatemalans might.

19

That’s fine, and I don’t even question that this would happen, but I do object to characterizing the US as having a strong social safety net.

Regardless, aren’t those exactly the sorts of people who made America great? Immigrants seeking a better life and willing to work hard for it? Maybe if we want to make America great again we should let more of those sorts in again.

20

Do you really think anyone migrates internationally for worker’s comp? Or SNAP, for that matter? I think this dramatically overestimates the knowledge of SNAP among Guatemala’s poor, and underestimates the investment of time, money, and resources a Guatemalan, especially a poor or working-class Guatemalan, needs in order to enter the US.