Some people believe that immigration in the 1900’s was a good thing, however, they would be wrong. The United States government should have restricted the immigrants around that time. Some reasons are the population, the taking of new jobs and lowering wages, and diseases spreading quickly. These all factored importantly into why they should not have been allowed in.
The population in the 1900’s was beginning to overflow. In 1875 the United States government had to put a immigration restriction so that no more immigrants could come into the United States. Which ended up leading into the depression. Then later in 1882 the United States government had to put a restriction on all Chinese immigrants because there were too many of them coming over. So as a result you can tell that too many immigrants were coming over into the United States.
Another big factor in why the immigrants should have been restricted in the 1900’s is because they would take most of the needed jobs in all of the warehouses. The main reason that they would get all of the jobs in the warehouses is because they would come in large amounts and they were willing to work for very little pay. The places that they lived were usually shacks or a 2 or three room apartment so they wouldn’t have many costs to take care of. This also would lead allot of Americans getting angry because it would become harder and harder to find work.
Due to the very poor living conditions that all of the immigrants would live in diseases would spread very quickly. Another reason that diseases would spread is because so many different people from different country’s would take very long journeys on a boat where it is tremendously overcrowded. Whenever immigrants would come over they would have to see a doctor.
The Great Depression destroyed most of the “aspect of American life, and the immigration was no exception” (Daniels, 59). The Great Depression occurred in 1929 was a worldwide hopelessness. The altered conditions affected a large numbers of people to leave, some used their own resources and the others were assisted by the United States government. During this time, it caused American government to give each country a maximum number of people allowed to enter the country, it did not disturb Latin American or Canadian immigrants. The Mexican immigrants that work in the United States had become very important to the economy of the country. Later in the 1950s, there was about 200,000 Mexican crosses the border without permission. They worked hard under poor conditions and accepted lower pay than the native workers. During the 1930s, the number of people leaving the United States had outdone the number of people arriving. While the American facing tough time with Great Depression, the “LPC clause” was passed by the President Hoover to prevent the Mexican from immigrating into the country. In 1848, the 80,000 Mexicans living on what had develop American soil could either transfer to what was left of Mexico or continue to stay and automatically become a United States citizen. The Great Depression caused the Mexican workers to move from one work place to another job and budgetary losses. Robert Divine a historian, describes that when immigrant answered “that there he had been waiting for job; the anti-contract labor clause could be used to deny the permission to enter.” This means that an official would have asked an immigrant, if they are looking for a job in the United States and if the answer was yes then the person was denied to enter the
The rags-to-riches story is always a classical and inspirational tale that tries to touch our hearts. These stories seeks to arouse the warm, intrinsic emotions that all humans get when they proudly achieve a long-term goal. Andrew Carnegie’s life is the exception. Andrew Carnegie was an industrialist who guided the expansion of the American steel industry in the 1800s. During this period, the United States was a demanding country for steel to use in the rail roads. Andrew Carnegie was not a hero but a heartless capitalist because he sabotaged his competitors in the steel industry, applied his belief that “(competition) insures the survival of the fittest in every department” into social standards, and, maintained his employees in unfair working
Carnegie opens his essay with the statement that there are three main ways most wealthy people use or distribute their money. First, some pass their money on to the next generation. Children...
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many American nativist groups opposed free unrestricted immigration. Although racism is a main reason, there were many others. Economic, political, social and moral standards seemed to be threatened by these newcomers. The immigrants were unfamiliar of the language and customs that we take for granted in our everyday lives. The fear that gripped the nation was why people reacted so strongly against immigrants. The people feared change might distort the course of our prospering country. We did not want to become what those immigrants were fleeing.
Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland in 1835. His father, Will, was a weaver and a follower of Chartism, a popular movement of the British working class that called for the masses to vote and to run for Parliament in order to help improve conditions for workers. The exposure to such political beliefs and his family's poverty made a lasting impression on young Andrew and played a significant role in his life after his family immigrated to the United States in 1848. Andrew Carnegie amassed wealth in the steel industry after immigrating from Scotland as a boy. He came from a poor family and had little formal education.
Immigration during the early 1900’s was a large debate between many Americans during this time. Society had many problems including underemployment issues related to increases in machinery replacing the labor forces and accusations that immigrants were replacing jobs as well. This period in time was tough for immigrants and the average American, the industry was efficient in regards to the need for labor was low and the output stayed high, people resorted to believing the problem lies with the lack of control of immigration. Statistics both proved that immigrants were they problem, but at the same time they proved to be the main cause.
As America continued to recruit workers from other countries, they continually worried about an immigration problem. In 1924, the Federal government passed the Immigration Act which officially barred further immigration from Asia and Europe to the U.S.
Andrew Carnegie stated that the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth and his opinion precisely reflects the real situation. Because it can be observed throughout history of human beings that usually majority was in such poverty, which barely enables them to survive. Carnegie was one of the richest men in the world of his times and maybe he knew as a successful businessman what the actual problem in distribution of wealth is. He has proposed possible solution of beneficial wealth distribution for this problem and it actually might work in his times. However, economy has changed compared with Carnegie’s times and it has become more global as lots of technological innovations were implemented. Robert Reich described current global economy in his work titled “Why the rich are getting richer, and the poor, poorer” where Carnegie’s solution may not properly work. The Carnegie’s solution may not properly work taking into account the obstacles such as increase of competition, permanent work in business and ageing population. Nevertheless, this means that only possibility of success of solution decreases, therefore it is not sensible to infer that the solution will not work at all.
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
It was unjustified for congress of the United States to pass the Immigration Act of 1924 to limit the immigration in 1920s.
The Untied States of America is commonly labeled or thought of as the melting pot of the world where diverse groups of people flock to in order to better their current lives. In our countries history this has proven to primarily be our way of living and how the people as a nation view immigration. However, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries this open door mentality was quite the opposite to what the majority of people felt towards the idea of welcoming these huddled masses. Immigrants were not seen as equals or people willing to work hard for a better life but rather a diseased parasite that would suck the prosperous and prestigious life that the old immigrants had become accustomed to. American nativist groups during this time period acted in a hypercritical manner with the impression that open immigration would, in the end cause our country to be overtaken and overrun by a far less superior race.
The rich tycoons of their society refused to share their money with the poor. Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gompers both wrote their essays towards the wealthy with hopes to make a difference for the poor workers and unemployed. Rich tycoons would do anything to keep it for themselves, if it meant leaving it as inheritance
Andrew Carnegie and Walter Rauschenbusch represent two opposing sides in the integration of Christian faith into society. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that the rich must reinvest their earnings into social programs that would benefit the poor without providing excess money that would enable them to spend frivolously on items that would not actually improve their overall situation. In contrast, Rauschenbusch was more concerned with the physical well being of those in lower classes. Both men wrote their works as a moral response to the rapid changes industrialization produced in their economies; similarly, today’s economy is rapidly changing as a result of technological development. However, morality has struggled to keep up with the exponential advancement in technology, leaving people with little
Andrew Carnegie does not believe wealth is distributed properly (Carnegie 485). In fact, he has a few different ideas of how to distribute wealth. In Carnegie’s essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” he states, “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of .” The first way he suggests to dispose of wealth is to pass it down in the family after the one with wealth passes away. The second way to dispose of wealth is, after death, distribute it for public uses. The third and final way one can dispose of wealth is by giving it to others while he or she is alive. This idea most reflects the idea of a communist in the case that the surplus wealth is distributed and becomes the property of many. All of the above are different ways that Andrew Carnegie felt wealth could be distributed among people. He says that the third and final way to distribute wealth is a lot like the beliefs of Karl Marx in the sense that Marx strongly believes in communism.
The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.