0
History of US Immigration
The history of US immigration is viewed in four periods: the colonial period, the mid-19th century, 20th century, and post-1965 eras. Each era has brought different races and ethnicities to the US.
2,509 Questions
What had the greatest effect on late 19 century immigrants coming into the US?
The Industrial Revolution brought a great surge of new jobs with the opening of factories and building of railroads. Between 1820 and 1890 five million immigrants, mostly from Ireland and Germany, came to America hoping to take part in this new prosperity. Economics had the greatest effect on immigrants and was their main reason for leaving their homelands and coming to America.
What Caribbean community has the following areas of activity except?
It is unclear what specific areas of activity are being referred to. Please provide more information so that I can provide an accurate answer.
Should American legislators incorporate the concept of transculturalization into immigration policy?
Yes, American legislators should incorporate the concept of transculturalization into immigration policy. Transculturalization recognizes that immigrants bring their own cultural heritage and traditions, which can enrich and diversify society. By embracing transculturalization, policymakers can promote cultural understanding and integration, allowing immigrants to preserve their identity while also fostering a sense of belonging and unity among all members of society.
What action did the u.s government take against immigrants and foreigners in the 1920's?
In the 1920s, the U.S. government implemented several measures targeting immigrants and foreigners. The Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act, introduced strict national origin quotas, severely limiting the number of immigrants from certain countries. Additionally, the government carried out deportation campaigns, specifically targeting individuals from southern and eastern Europe, and enacted harsh restrictions on naturalization for immigrants.
What set up a formula to determine the number of immigrants allowed in the united stated?
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, establishes the framework for determining the number of immigrants allowed in the United States. The formula includes factors like family-sponsored preferences, employment-based preferences, diversity visa program, and humanitarian provisions. The specific numerical limits for each category are determined annually by the U.S. Congress through the appropriations process.
It is not true that all late 19th century and early 20th century immigrants came from Europe. While a large number of immigrants did come from European countries, there were also immigrants from other parts of the world, such as Asia.
Why did Irish immirgants come to America in the 1800s?
Nothing, they migrated to Canada because of the potato famine, and they had no belongings.
Why did the Russians leave Russia to come to the US?
Since Russia is not indutrializated by many countries,still today). THey needed somewhere where they can leave (modernized areas) One of them was U.S.
Why did people want to move out west on the Oregon Trail?
for a better life, which included making more money, bigger land given to you by the government, and a new start in life.
Name two functions of forts along the Oregon Trail?
For protection from natives that wanted to attack as well as an attempt to establish control of the West (like a symbolic sort of thing)
Also for stops along the trail for trade and such, as well as communication between West-East.
Which was the most important reason that immigrants faced prejudice when they got America?
People thought immigrants were taking jobs away from citizens.
The Chinese
What was the main reason that immigrants in the cities became new voters in large numbers?
When immigrants have come to the United States, many ended up living in deplorable conditions, enduring poverty while they learned English and acquired job skills. In many cases, as a result of these difficult living conditions, they were mobilized by political parties (or by individual candidates) who believed the immigrants could become a loyal and highly-motivated bloc of voters. Many immigrants bought into this idea-- that living in a free country meant being able to vote, and they were excited to do so. (Other immigrants came from countries where there was no such tradition as democracy, and they did not see voting as very important.) However, more often than not, immigrants were mobilized by candidates who understood their concerns and spoke their native language.
Historically, not all politicians have reached out to immigrant communities, and in fact, at some times, there was great resistance to including immigrants-- even those who were legal and trying to become citizens. But some politicians have made it a point to reach out to immigrants, promising them a voice in improving their lives or promising that once they became citizens, they could have more of a say in policies that affected them.
Why did polish immigrants come to the us of America?
Polish immigrants began coming to the United States in large numbers in the late 19th century mainly driven by economic and political reasons. The industrial revolution in Europe created a demand for workers and Poles were particularly desperate to find work due to a series of military defeats political unrest and economic hardship in their homeland. Additionally the promise of religious and political freedom in the United States was very attractive to Poles seeking to escape oppressive regimes in Europe.
- Industrial Revolution in Europe created a demand for workers
- Poles were desperate to find work due to military defeats political unrest and economic hardship in their homeland
- Promise of religious and political freedom in the United States was attractive to Poles seeking to escape oppressive regimes in Europe
For these reasons thousands of Poles made the journey across the Atlantic to the United States often enduring difficult and dangerous conditions to find a better life. They settled in large numbers in the northeastern and midwestern states and their influence on American society is still visible today.
What led to passage of the exclusion act?
Chinese workers took jobs for low pay in mining and railroad construction in the United States.
-APEX Learning®️ 2021
Why did immigrants have culture groups when they came to America?
Immigrants had culture groups when they came to America for a variety of reasons. Many immigrants wanted to find a sense of community and support in the unfamiliar new environment. These culture groups allowed immigrants to maintain their heritage and traditions while also providing a social network of support. In addition they provided a place to practice the language customs and beliefs of their homeland. Finally these culture groups provided a way to stay connected with their place of origin while also helping to foster a sense of belonging in their new home.
The benefits of forming culture groups included:
- Maintaining heritage and traditions
- Providing a sense of community and support
- Practicing language customs and beliefs from their homeland
- Fostering a sense of belonging in the new home
In conclusion culture groups were a valuable resource for immigrants coming to America. They provided a way for them to stay connected to their homeland while also allowing them to find a sense of belonging in their new home.
'Why did American attitudes towards new immigrants change during the 1920's?
1. The following quotes were made by two Congressmen during the debate over immigration quotas in
December, 1920 (Congressional Record, 1921).
Congressman James McClintic, Democrat Oklahoma: "I say the class of immigrants coming to the shores
of the United States at this time are not the kind of people we want as citizens in this country."
Congressman Lucian Parrish, Democrat Texas: "We should stop immigration entirely until such a time as
we can amend our immigration laws and so write them that hereafter no one shall be admitted except he
be in full sympathy with our constitution and laws."
2. Nicolas Vanzetti was tried in Massachusetts twice, first for bank robbery and then for murder. In the
first trial, Webster Thayer, who was the judge in both cases, told the jury: "This man, although he may
not have actually committed the crime . . ., is nevertheless morally culpable, because he is the enemy of
our existing institutions."
3. Statement by Bartolomeo Vanzetti, April 10, 1927: "Sacco too is a worker from his boyhood, a skilled
worker, lover of work, with a good job and pay, a bank account, a good and lovely wife, two beautiful
children and a neat little home at the verge of a wood, near a brook. Sacco is a heart, a faith, a character, a
man; a man, lover of nature and of mankind. A man who gave all, who sacrifice all to the cause of
Liberty, and to his love for mankind; money, rest, mundane ambitions, his wife, his children, himself and
his own life. Sacco has never dreamt to steal, never to assasinate. He and I have never brought a morsel of
bread to our mouths, from our childhood to today, which has not been gained by the sweat of our brows.
Never.... Oh yes, I may be more witful as some have put it. I am a better babbler than he is, but many,
many times in hearing his heartful voice ringing a faithful sublime, in considering his supreme sacrifice,
remembering his heroism I felt small, small at the presence of his greatness and found myself compelled
to fight back from my eyes the tears, and quanch my heart trobling to my throat not to weep before him:
this man called thief and assasin and doomed. But Sacco's name will live in the hearts of people and in
their gratitude, when... your laws, institutions, and your false gods are but a dim remembering of a cursed
past in which man was wolf to the man. If it had not been for these things I might have lived out my life
talking at street corners to scorning men. I might have died, unmarked, unknown, a failure. Now we are
not a failure. This is our career and our triumph. Never in our full life could we hope to do such work for
tolerance, for justice, for man's understaning of man, as now we do by accident. Our words, our lives, our
pains -- nothing! The taking of our lives -- lives of a good shoemaker and a poor fishpeddler-- all! That
last moment belongs to us -- that agony is our triumph."
4. "Chicago Girl Urges General Protest Strike" was published in the Johnstown, Pa. Tribune, on August
10, 1927. It is about a female teenage Italian immigrant who led a political protest in Chicago against the
threatened execution of Sacco and Vanzetti.
"A bright-eyed 18-year-old high school girl paced her cell at police headquarters today shouting she was an
anarchist after having been arrested while leading thousands of shouting Sacco-Vanzetti sympathizers through the
streets last night. It was the girl who brought chaos to an orderly Sacco-Vanzetti protest meeting. As the meeting
ended she dashed to the street, shouting: "General strike! general strike!" This added a splash of color to the
otherwise drab proceedings of the meeting and inflamed the gathering.
With the girl, Aurora D'Angela, at the lead, the crowd surged into the street and marched along shouting the
"Third Internationale" and appealing for a general strike. For a few blocks the protest parade was orderly. Then a
motor car was ripped and torn by the crowd. A street car was boarded and the girl slapped the motorman. One
small police motor car attempted to stop the parade, but its passage was blocked. Additional police motor cars
swept into the tide of shouting enthusiasts and tear gas bombs were unloosed into the crowd. The tear gas bombs
caused the crowd to disperse and 15 of the leaders--including the 18-year-old girl--were arrested.
She maintained she had long attended Liberal meetings in Chicago and said: "I am an anarchist. My father
was an anarchist." Throughout the entire din there was a cry that Sacco and Vanzetti were being persecuted by
capitalism. No signs were in evidence and the only means of identifying the crowd was in the constant shouting.
Join the Multicultural Debate
Consider the issues raised in this chapter and read the following statements by different authors who
discuss multicultural social studies:
James A. Banks (1993): "One misconception about multicultural education is that it is an entitlement
program and curriculum movement for African Americans, Hispanics, the poor, women and other
victimized groups. . . . Multicultural education . . . is not an ethnic- or gender-specific movement. It
is a movement designed to empower all students to become knowledgeable, caring, and active
citizens in a deeply troubled and ethnically polarized nation and world."
Maxine Greene (1993: 17): "Learning to look through multiple perspectives, young people may be
helped to build bridges among themselves; attending to a range of human stories, they may be
provoked to heal and to transform. Of course there will be difficulties in affirming plurality and
difference and, at once, working to create community. Since the days of De Tocqueville, Americans
have wondered how to deal with the conflicts between individualism and the drive to conform."
Octavio Paz (1993: 57-58): "You are already a hybrid culture, which to me is a positive thing. I believe
all cultures are richer when they assimilate others, and change. I don't believe in a pure culture. Here
we are sitting and talking in New York, a city populated by the minorities that are the world's
majority. It is marvelous, no?"
Diane Ravitch (1990c: 3): "Almost any idea, carried to its extreme, can be made pernicious, and this is
what is happening now to multiculturalism. . . . Advocates of particularism propose an ethnocentric
curriculum to raise the self-esteem and academic achievement of children from racial and ethnic
minority backgrounds. Without any evidence, they claim that children from minority backgrounds
will do well in school only if they are immersed in a positive, prideful version of their ancestral
culture."
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (1992: 29): "The use of history as therapy means the corruption of history as
history. . . . Let us by all means teach black history, African history, women's history, Hispanic
history, Asian history. But let us teach them as history, not as filiopietistic commemoration."
Albert Shanker (1995): "As practiced by some, 'multiculturalism' takes the shape of something
approximating a new ideology of separatism. It challenges the idea of a common identity and rejects
the possibility of a common set of values. . . . Often, the claims of multiculturalists and other
separatists reflects the attitude that no one group may make a judgment on any other, since all
'depends on your point of view'. This extremely relativistic viewpoint conflicts with the need that all
societies have of establishing some basic values, guidelines and beliefs."
Christine Sleeter (1991:12): "Education that is multicultural and social reconstructionist forges a
coalition among various oppressed groups as well as members of dominant groups, teaching directly
about political and economic oppression and discrimination, and preparing young people directly in
social action skills."
Add your voice to the discussion:
1. Which statement(s) come(s) closest to your understanding of multiculturalism? Why?
2. Which statements do you disagree with? Why?
3. What are the implications of this chapter and the quotations for planning social studies curricula?
Why did people immigrate to Ellis Island?
People did not immigrate to Ellis Island- they immigrated to the US- Ellis Island was their point of entry to the US. People came to the US because of religious persecution, financial opportunity, and fleeing conditions of war or famine in their native countries.
What state did the Germans live at in the United States?
All of them. Vast numbers came to the Cornbelt and most are north of the Mason Dixon Line. There are exceptions including a large part of Texas.
Majority of English and German immigrants preferred the South and there were definitely more German immigrants there.
