Old Fears New Foes (2/5): Immigrants Do Not Assimilate
Why were Italians seen as a “very degraded and ignorant population?”
We continue to explore the underlying anxieties which led to enacting the most restrictive immigration act in American history.
We posit that it was these anxieties and not new biological arguments that account for the passage of this law. We focus on Italian immigrants to show how these pre-existing anxieties manifested themselves.
The Threat of New Immigrants
Concerns about new immigrants were often rooted in a fear that America could not assimilate them. Anxieties about the assimilation of new immigrants were twofold.
First, Italians lived in what Americans considered undesirable conditions. Second, Italians had no intention of assimilating and consequently threatened American culture. Fundamentally, they reflect a concern about the social, cultural, religious, and economic impact that new immigrants could have, irrespective of their biological or physical attributes.
These fears were remarkably similar to the ones that had motivated the exclusion of Chinese workers in 1882. Later, in 1889, a the US Suprme Court that the United States Congress could ban foreigners if it “considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security” (Chinese Exclusion Case, 1889). Like the Chinese workers who had been excluded a few decades before, many Italian immigrants intended to return to their motherland (LaGumina, 2018).
Temporary Immigrants and their Discontents
Most Italian immigrants were men whose intentions were to work, save money, and return to Italy (Cinotto, 2013).
According to some estimates more than 70% planned to save money and return to their country (Okrent, 2019; Cinotto, 2013). The Commissioner of Connecticut said Italians wish “to stay here until he can save two or three hundred dollars, and then go home again” (Mayo-Smith, 1888).
Therefore, many sought to spend less on rent. This intention affected how Italians lived and thus the stereotypes that others formed about them. Italians came to be seen as impossible to assimilate.
The US Consul in Marseille was appalled that their “wants are so few” (Mayo-Smith, 1888). Observers pointed out that Italians “grow up in filthy cellars” (LaGumina, 1973). These concerns also echo those directed at the Chinese, whom a journalist accused of being “filthy in their habits” (1869). Italian workers were seen as the “Chinese of Europe.”
The US consul in Marseille added that Italians in France were like the Chinese in the Western American States” (Mayo-Smith, 1888). Italians lived in dirtier homes, probably because they sought to save as much as possible (Cogdell, 2004). They were amongst the “poorest” (Rosen, 2004).
More Threats
Their situation, like that of Chinese laborers decades before, posed an economic threat to American workers. Henry Laughlin, famed scientist and proponent of restricting immigration, argued that Italians increasingly migrated to America because of the “lure of an easy job” (1924).
New immigrants were willing to work for lower wages and thus “underbid the native laborer” (Mayo-Smith, 1888). To be competitive, Americans would have to be willing to work for the same pitiful wages and live in the same squalid conditions as new immigrants. In short, new immigrants threatened low-skilled American workers.
There were cultural aspects of Italian immigrants that Americans found unpalatable. Robert Grant, a respected scientist and an avid birdwatcher, was livid that Italians hunted songbirds (Allen, 2013).
Others found their Roman Catholicism troublesome (Cinotto, 2013) which stemmed from “puritan anxieties about contamination” (Spiro, 2009). Preachers like Rausenbusch argued that new immigrants were “alien strains of blood” (Rosen, 2004). Italians were not sufficiently racist as they were willing to live, work, and sell to black people which angered a New York Times reporter (Vellon, 2010).
Historian Vellon argued that Americans, at that time, found that Italians had a different religion, acted in ways that were considered untoward, and associated with Black people, whom many Americans saw as inferior (2010). The different social habits of new immigrants challenged American norms.
The growing number of Italian immigrants threatened American culture. An article in the Saturday Evening Post claimed, as Americans we “have not been assimilating our latter-day immigration; it has been assimilating us” (Spiro, 2009). Hall even claimed that Americans did not want their children playing with the children of new immigrants and were even choosing to forgo having children to avoid interacting with immigrants (Hall, 1919; Spiro, 2009). An Economist at Yale argued that new immigrants had made society dirty which made Americans reluctant to have children.
According to prominent sociologist Edward A. Ross, to make matters worse, Italians and other immigrants were having too many children (Paul, 199; Reggiani, 2006). In contrast, the birth rate of Americans was decreasing (Kline, 2005).
Thus, President Teddy Roosevelt (R-New York) urged Americans of the right kind to reproduce. Teddy Roosevelt argued that the low birth rate among the right kind of Americans was a “capital sin, the cardinal sin, against the race, and against civilization” (Spiro, 2009).
Ross called people of “good stock” (White Protestants) who did not have children “race criminals.” The New York Times claimed immigrants were, in essence, breeding stock therefore it sustained that it was essential to ensure that those who enter are “men of real hereditary capacity” and “outstanding personal qualities” (1934).
Another potential concern had to do with citizenship and voting rights, which Italians and other Southern Europeans could claim if they desired to stay (Nagi, 1999). The decision in Ozawa v. US is important, as it argued that citizenship could be granted to individuals of the Caucasian race, which may or may not apply to Southern Europeans (Ozawa, 1922).
There were even places where English, as Henry James had said,” was not heard.” The perception was that new immigrants would not only not assimilate, but that they would overrun American culture.
A “Very Degraded and Ignorant Population”
Many Italian immigrants mostly came from the south of Italy, which the New York Times called “a very degraded and ignorant population,” thus making them hard to assimilate (NYT, 1882).
The new immigrants came “from lower and lower levels” (Hall, 1919). Hall described them as “inferior mentally, socially and economically” (1919). While others like Laughlin recognised that every nation has families “splendidly endowed by nature,” he thought that assimilating Northern Europeans is “a much simpler task than the Americanization of Latin or other stocks less closely related to us in nationality” (Laughlin, 1920).
Fear surrounding the question of assimilation had less to do with race or biology than one may at first think. Even Laughlin argued that the United States should “bar the immigration of all persons, regardless of race, who are potential parents, and whose reproduction would not improve the native talents and racial qualities of the American people of the future” (Laughlin, 1924). Laughlin’s use of “all persons” and “regardless of race” shows that his view was not about the race of prospective immigrants but their quality.
The cultural effect of new immigrants, not their biology, created the anxieties about assimilation. Looking at the jobs these immigrants did and how they lived provides further evidence to support this view.
Some Italians’ desire to return home (and the fact that many did), their use of their mother tongue, their religion, and their customs further convinced Americans that these immigrants were here to resist becoming American.
Authors: Christian Orlic & Lucas Heili
This article is based on a paper written by Christian Orlic for one of his graduate degrees.
Part I gives an overview of the subject matter and summarizes our argument. You can read Old Fears New Foes:
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Lillian Manansala. Lillian orgsanised a few meetinhgs via Zoom for the colleages in this class to discuss ideas, arguments, and approaches to our research. Lillian also offered some proofreading. We also wanted to thank Eric Revis who provided comments of a general nature. Lastly Scott Thompson provided copy editing of the paper.
You can peruse the sources we used for the series at: Sources For Old Fears and New Foes
