Comparing the two Goudeau chapters provides an interesting contrast in American immigration sentiments and policy pre- and post-World War II \u2013 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\u2019s \u201cresponsibilities\u201d?<\/p>\n
In my opinion, the modern political climate \u2013 certainly in attitudes towards immigration \u2013 is far closer to the \u201crestrictionists\u201d vs \u201cliberalizers\u201d conflicts than the (mostly) unified support towards immigrants under Truman.<\/p>\n
Certainly, the current Republican party is isolationist. They are explicitly \u201cAmerica first,\u201d echoing the name of Lindbergh\u2019s 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\u2019s 2016 campaign: \u201cWe\u2019re going to build a wall, and Mexico\u2019s going to pay for it.\u201d So far, at least, one could argue that a partial wall was built, but Mexico certainly has not paid for it.<\/p>\n
The modern isolationists\u2019 concerns also echo their predecessors, though they have expressed even more concerns. The economic argument remains \u2013 Trump has been arguing since 2014<\/a> that \u201cThey\u2019re taking your jobs\u201d (referring to immigrants), and just this summer famously said<\/a> that immigrants are \u201ctaking Black jobs and they\u2019re taking Hispanic jobs and you haven\u2019t seen it yet but you\u2019re going to see something that\u2019s going to be the worst in our history.\u201d Trump has also said<\/a> repeatedly that illegal migrants are coming from \u201cmental institutions\u201d but some have theorized that it\u2019s simply because he doesn\u2019t know the two meanings of \u201casylum.\u201d In any case, isolationists have also added that the immigrants are illegally voting \u2013 and voting against their party \u2013 and the fentanyl crisis has only heightened their concerns. Are we looping back into the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century stances?<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 where we see other humans as humans without caring about their nationality or a race?<\/p>\n Reading the quotes from Truman\u2019s speech was fascinating. How many people would think that we have an obligation to refugees? It sparks an interesting debate \u2013 if something similar happened today \u2013 heaven forbid \u2013 would people think we have a continued obligation to help the refugees of war, or would people think our obligation ended because we \u201csaved\u201d them and ended the war? Perhaps the argument of owing it to the troops who died would win over any restrictionists? Would people support \u201cdoing what was right, even if it was hard?\u201d (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?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Comparing the two Goudeau chapters provides an interesting contrast in American immigration sentiments and policy pre- and post-World War II \u2013 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\u2019s \u201cresponsibilities\u201d? In my<\/p>\n