Comparing the two Goudeau chapters provides an interesting contrast in American immigration sentiments and policy pre- and post-World War II – but what is more interesting to me is comparing them with current stances towards immigration. Do people now lean more towards better-safe-than-sorryism or towards fulfilling what Truman referred to as America’s “responsibilities”?

In my opinion, the modern political climate – certainly in attitudes towards immigration – is far closer to the “restrictionists” vs “liberalizers” conflicts than the (mostly) unified support towards immigrants under Truman.

Certainly, the current Republican party is isolationist. They are explicitly “America first,” echoing the name of Lindbergh’s 1940 committee. Certain members of the party have continuously voted against giving aid to Ukraine, and a significant majority support a strong border with Mexico. That was even a common refrain in Trump’s 2016 campaign: “We’re going to build a wall, and Mexico’s going to pay for it.” So far, at least, one could argue that a partial wall was built, but Mexico certainly has not paid for it.

The modern isolationists’ concerns also echo their predecessors, though they have expressed even more concerns. The economic argument remains – Trump has been arguing since 2014 that “They’re taking your jobs” (referring to immigrants), and just this summer famously said that immigrants are “taking Black jobs and they’re taking Hispanic jobs and you haven’t seen it yet but you’re going to see something that’s going to be the worst in our history.” Trump has also said repeatedly that illegal migrants are coming from “mental institutions” but some have theorized that it’s simply because he doesn’t know the two meanings of “asylum.” In any case, isolationists have also added that the immigrants are illegally voting – and voting against their party – and the fentanyl crisis has only heightened their concerns. Are we looping back into the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century stances?

If we are, I wonder how we might loop back to the post-World War II standpoint. One where we are welcoming towards those seeking refuge. Where the country feels an obligation to help them. Perhaps it would not be because of some horrible situation, but because we have the means to help other humans. Are we currently capable of that kind of humanity – where we see other humans as humans without caring about their nationality or a race?

Reading the quotes from Truman’s speech was fascinating. How many people would think that we have an obligation to refugees? It sparks an interesting debate – if something similar happened today – heaven forbid – would people think we have a continued obligation to help the refugees of war, or would people think our obligation ended because we “saved” them and ended the war? Perhaps the argument of owing it to the troops who died would win over any restrictionists? Would people support “doing what was right, even if it was hard?” (granted, that was from a movie, not Truman). Are liberalizers now more willing to fight against restrictionist legislation, as opposed to their lack of opposition to the Chinese Exclusion Act?