What do you think?
Rate this book
American Immigration Policy, 1924-1952
Book by Divine, Robert A.
234 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1972
About the author
Robert A. Divine
113 books1 followerRobert A. Divine joined the faculty of the University of Texas in 1954 as a professor of history. He served as Chairman of the Department of History and the Committee on International Studies, and a member of the interim committee that helped with the organization of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University. In addition, he served as president of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations and authored eleven books. He retired in 1996.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 22, 2015
His driving force is objectivity. His desire is to allow the reader to draw own conclusions, while he presents the facts. He studied immigrants who wanted to be here legally and permanently, not any transients.
Two dominant beliefs: 1. United States is a shelter for asylum seekers. 2. the United States is a melting pot. Immigration was natural, necessary and beneficial to the United States’ economy.
Literacy test: Taft and Wilson vetoed this for years, but finally Wilson was outnumbered in 1917. 1921 law – group selection was the main focus.
AFL was the ancient arch enemy of immigrants in the United States.
Racial purity, racial hegemony was the goal. What influences immigration policy decisions? 1. economic fears. 2. social/race fears 3. nationalism. 4. foreign policy retribution
Henry Pratt Fairchild “The Melting Pot Mistake” Praising 1924 legislation.
Hot debate about using 1890 census for 1924 law because it would heavily favor the UK, which almost shut out Germany, Norway, etc. Divine argues that national origin schemes was much more fair.
John Box: Texas. Anti-immigration, but why??
Why is it when the Mexican quota issue came up, ALL of the south voted for it, which the rest of the United States was divided? (Somewhat like with slavery?) Is this a dissertation topic hiding??? Eureka!!
Taking away jobs? NO! Large numbers of Mexs. In Chi., LA, UT, CO, KS..
Overrunning local population? NO (Same as above.)
Social service drain? NO, because there were few social services to speak of anyway.
Race mixing with whites, similar issue to black/white during the civil war and continuing through today? Possibly.
Political parties? Maybe (partisan voting.)
p. 65. Divine argues that the solidly Restrictionist south led the country when determining immigration policy . . . but WHY? Mexicans=slaves? After the Harris Bill was defeated, the issue never came up again.
Gamio argued that because Mexicans couldn’t or wouldn’t Americanize their immigration was bad for everyone.
The sectionalism didn’t carry over to legislative voting about Filipinos during this time, though. It was an even split in the south.
HIST 8980: Hawes; Thematic Studies; Fall 2005
Two dominant beliefs: 1. United States is a shelter for asylum seekers. 2. the United States is a melting pot. Immigration was natural, necessary and beneficial to the United States’ economy.
Literacy test: Taft and Wilson vetoed this for years, but finally Wilson was outnumbered in 1917. 1921 law – group selection was the main focus.
AFL was the ancient arch enemy of immigrants in the United States.
Racial purity, racial hegemony was the goal. What influences immigration policy decisions? 1. economic fears. 2. social/race fears 3. nationalism. 4. foreign policy retribution
Henry Pratt Fairchild “The Melting Pot Mistake” Praising 1924 legislation.
Hot debate about using 1890 census for 1924 law because it would heavily favor the UK, which almost shut out Germany, Norway, etc. Divine argues that national origin schemes was much more fair.
John Box: Texas. Anti-immigration, but why??
Why is it when the Mexican quota issue came up, ALL of the south voted for it, which the rest of the United States was divided? (Somewhat like with slavery?) Is this a dissertation topic hiding??? Eureka!!
Taking away jobs? NO! Large numbers of Mexs. In Chi., LA, UT, CO, KS..
Overrunning local population? NO (Same as above.)
Social service drain? NO, because there were few social services to speak of anyway.
Race mixing with whites, similar issue to black/white during the civil war and continuing through today? Possibly.
Political parties? Maybe (partisan voting.)
p. 65. Divine argues that the solidly Restrictionist south led the country when determining immigration policy . . . but WHY? Mexicans=slaves? After the Harris Bill was defeated, the issue never came up again.
Gamio argued that because Mexicans couldn’t or wouldn’t Americanize their immigration was bad for everyone.
The sectionalism didn’t carry over to legislative voting about Filipinos during this time, though. It was an even split in the south.
HIST 8980: Hawes; Thematic Studies; Fall 2005
Displaying 1 of 1 review