Americanism Movement in The Us: a Regrettable Past

The term nativism, also referred to as Americanism, first gained significance following the Civil War. The nativist goal was to protect the interests of so-called “natives”-descendants of the original Anglo-Saxon settlers, above those of more recent immigrants. Nativist views were ugly at times frequently resulting in racism, discrimination, mistreatment of immigrants, unfair immigration policies, and other regrettable parts of U.S. history. However, unlike another very ugly chapter in American history books, slavery, many believe that nativism remains even today. They point to President Trump’s recent campaign platform as evidence that nativism is alive and well. Americanism incorporates many ideas and concepts-some remain racist and represent the worst human characteristics. However, within the broad scope of nativism, there have always been legitimate objectives mixed in with the racist elements; while the particular objectives and elements may have evolved over time, nativism was and remains today a popular political topic and part of the political agenda of many politicians.

The beginning of the nativist movement is usually traced to the post-Civil War period when immigration policies led to waves of new immigrants from countries such as Ireland, Germany, and later China. Immigration into the U.S. accelerated even further as a result of the severe economic depression in Europe during the 1890s when millions of immigrants came in from Southern and Eastern Europe, including Catholic and Jewish immigrants; “Between 1871 and 1900 alone, 11.7 million immigrants arrived; and between 1901 and 1920, another 14.5 million came”. Many original Anglo-Saxon settlers and their descendants (ironically self-labeled as “natives” without consideration of the indigenous people) felt threatened by these newer immigrants. Nativists argued that the newcomers took jobs from native-born Americans, and, even worse, they argued that the Catholics, via the Papal Conspiracy, and Jews, via the International Jewish Conspiracy, posed a threat to society. This led to the onset of the original “anti-immigration” sentiments that spread throughout the United States.

Domestic support for the nativist movement was further bolstered by events occurring around the globe. Shortly after the Bolsheviks had taken over the Soviet Union, the American Communist Party was founded in the early 1920s. This greatly frightened Americans, as they believed that the working class would eventually overthrow the middle and upper class. The resulting paranoia became known as the First Red Scare. This led President Woodrow Wilson to pass the Sedition Act: forbidding “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive” speech about the United States. This was one of the first true depictions of nativism in modern American legislation. Wilson used an anti-immigrant sentiment in his campaign to get elected. Hans Vaught, of the University of Illinois, described that, “Wilson, like most progressives, moderate or otherwise, abhorred not only the anarchist and socialist beliefs of some of the foreign born, he failed completely to understand their conception of politics as an exchange of favors.” His strong use of maintaining a nativist America ultimately helped him gain support and end up sitting in the White House. Wilson wanted to promote a strong sense of American nationalism, and in doing so, prohibited non-American sentiments from fostering in the United States.

Extreme manifestations of this protectionist mindset and paranoia concerning the nefarious motives of “un-Americans” led to such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, which targeted African Americans, Catholics, and Jews, among others. From there, the Nativist sentiment exponentially took off. Not only did many Americans not want any anti-American ideas in the United States, but the tide also shifted to people not wanting any non-Americans in the United States.

Nativism continued to gain influence during the Great Depression and World War II. The domestic economy was crippled by the early 1930s with record unemployment rates, food shortages, homelessness and other widespread economic obstacles. The Nativists argued that the country already had its hands full trying to care of its own citizens, and there certainly were not enough jobs or resources for non-Americans. Even as World War II slowly began to bring some economic relief to the economy, underlying anti-asian racism led to President Franklin Roosevelt issuing the infamous Executive Order 9066, which provided for the internment of over 110,000 Japanese residents, many of whom were American citizens. As a stark indicator of the underlying racism involved, General John L. DeWitt, the officer in charge of protecting the West Coast of the United States, argued that the internment was necessary because “The Japanese race is an enemy race and while many second- and third-generation Japanese born on United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become ‘Americanized’ the racial strains are undiluted”. FDR sought to gain a lot of political mileage by implementing the internment program and pandering to the anti-Japanese sentiments, while creating a strong, nativist front. This appealed to many because while it kept the “enemies” captive, it made FDR appear to be very nationalistic; overall, helping him gain supporters.

After World War II, there was an estimated 11 million displaced people (DP) in camps throughout Europe, many of whom were Jewish. Some were able to return to their home countries. However, those that could not return, needed some other place to live. Many hoped to come to the United States. Unfortunately, the United States refused to change the highly restrictive immigration policy passed in 1924 to assist these displaced persons. Essentially, the nativists strongly argued against revising existing immigration policies to help the Jewish displaced persons largely because of the fear that the Jews would bring radical ideas into the United States.

Nativism most certainly led to some very regrettable chapters of United States history. Unfortunately, many would argue that nativism is not just a thing of the past, as evidenced by President Trump’s recent campaign platform. They compare the present treatment of Mexican immigrants and immigrants from certain Muslim countries to the past treatment of Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Catholics and other targeted groups on account of nativist beliefs. Trump’s campaign, which emphasized the building of a wall along the Mexican border and strong border enforcement, as well as limiting Muslim immigration, resonated well with many voters. Trump’s critics point out that the current suspicions about Muslim immigrants are very similar to the nativist, anti-Catholic views of the mid-nineteenth century, when large groups of Catholics were leaving Ireland and Germany-the papal conspiracy, the danger they pose to society, etc. This is also comparable to the reasons Jews as displaced persons after World War II were not permitted to immigrate to the US in meaningful numbers.

While it is entirely possible that Trump privately holds racist views, many aspects of his platform which are labeled as being racist are really nothing new. Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban”-was essentially already in place having been enacted by President Obama. In fact, “Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Sudan were already on the list from the [Obama] administration's original law in 2015, and in February of 2016, the Obama Administration added Libya, Yemen, and Somalia to a list of 'countries of concern, which placed some restrictions on Visa Waiver Program travel on those who had visited the countries after March 1, 2011.” Similarly, Trump’s “Mexican Wall” – had been on and off the table for many years. Historian, and publisher of the book Line in the Sand: A history of the Western U.S.- Mexican Border, Rachel St. John discussed that even in 1918, the construction of a border wall was debated. Trump simply underscored what was already out there – voters found it much more exciting to hear him speak about these concepts than his real estate deals. The fact that these elements of his campaign platform resonated so strongly with such a large portion of the electorate shows that nativist views are still very much present in current American culture. Trump was looking for an easy place to obtain political mileage, very similar to earlier politicians who built nativist concepts into their platforms. The “undesirables” may have changed from Catholics, Asians, and Jews to Mexicans and Muslims, but the principles are the same: restrict these groups from coming to the US because of the threats they pose, the fact that they want to change America, that the immigrants will take American jobs, resources, etc. Obama, Bush and Clinton, and others before them, such as Roosevelt in taking action against the Japanese, one way or another built these types of “nativist” themes into their platforms because it always resonates so well with a large part of the electorate. In short, politicians still will frequently go to the nativist well as an easy way to gain support and popularity. There’s always a large part of the population that will vote for someone promising strong borders and restrictive immigration policies. This was true after the Civil War and remains very true today.

When closely examining nativism, a distinction needs to be made between parts of nativism based on racist principles or unfounded conspiracy theories, such as the papal conspiracy, or the view that all Muslims are terrorists, and the legitimate desire to control immigration flow to ensure that Americans have jobs and that there are sufficient resources available for its own citizens. For example, few argued that it was racist to desire to curb immigration during the Great Depression as a result of the already scarce jobs. It is widely agreed among political scholars that “a country has the right to secure borders and protect the interests of current citizens at the expense of potential immigrants. [E]very country has a sovereign right to control its borders”. Friedman is emphasizing that the desire to protect a country’s borders is not in and of itself racist. In fact, it is a fundamental to the existence of a democratic state to be able to regulate its population, determine who may enter the country and under what conditions. Moreover, Kaufmann takes it a step further in writing that it is also completely legitimate for a group to be protective of its own individual culture and share of the population, and protect that group at the possible expense of others. He noted that these objectives do not necessarily imply racist motives. On the other hand, hatred towards other groups or touting concepts such as racial purity can be dangerous and may very well be racist.

With these distinctions in mind, one can see why some of the non-racist nativisist concepts have been so consistently compelling in American politics. Bump and Friedman made it clear that desiring to have strong borders and control immigration does not necessarily make someone a racist. Scholars recognize legitimate reasoning behind this such as allocation of limited resources, protecting jobs, legitimate safety and security concerns. These themes resonate well with many decent liberal-minded Americans, and hitting home on these points was very effective not only for Donald Trump, but many of his predecessors. Even policies intended to maintain the possible heritage and separate identity of a particular group should be permitted-not accepting the view that everyone in America should be the same after years of assimilation does not make someone a racist. However, the fine line that can not be permitted to be crossed, is basing immigration policies or other legislations on racist principles, paranoia or ignorance.

Works Cited

1. Bump, Philip. “Rep. Steve King Warns That 'Our Civilization' Can't Be Restored with 'Somebody Else's Babies'.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 Mar. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/12/rep-steve-king-warns-that-our-ci/vilization-cant-be-restored-with-somebody-elses-babies/.
2. Friedman, Uri. “What Is a Nativist?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 12 Apr. 2017,www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/what-is-nativist-trump/521355/.
3. “Immigrants, Nativism and Americanization.” Immigrants, Nativism, Americanization, 2009, lcweb2.loc.gov:8081/ammem/amrlhtml/dtimmig.html.
4. Ink, Social. “Nativism, An American Perennial.” The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), 2016, cmsny.org/publications/kraut-nativism/.
5. Shelbourne, Mallory. “Spicer: Obama Administration Originally Flagged 7 Countries in Trump's Order.” TheHill, 30 Jan. 2017, thehill.com/homenews/administration
6. John, Rachel St. “The Raging Controversy at the Border Began With This Incident 100 Years Ago.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 1 July 2018, www.smithsonianmag.com.
7. Vought, Hans. “Division and Reunion: Woodrow Wilson, Immigration, and the Myth of American Unity.” Journal of American Ethnic History, vol. 13, no. 3, 1994, pp. 24–50. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27501140.