Prompt 1 And Prompt 2: Analyze Nativism, Immigration Law ✓ Solved

Prompt 1 and Prompt 2: Analyze nativism, immigration law, and

Prompt 1. The rise of the Nativist Movement in the 1920s, anti-immigrant sentiment, and restrictive immigration legislation. The sources include the Dillingham Commission Report (analysis of desirable and undesired immigrants), the Immigration Act of 1924 and related reactions (1928; 1929). Questions: 1) Did the Dillingham Commission's findings influence the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924? If so, what is the evidence? 2) Who presents the stronger argument regarding Mexican immigration, Box or Galarza? Use the documents and course materials to support your answer.

Prompt 2. American entry into World War I reversed the long-standing policy of political isolationism. The sources include Woodrow Wilson's War Message (1917) and Robert La Follette's Anti-War Speech (1917). Questions: 1) Outline Wilson's case for the war against Germany. Are his points valid and what is the evidence? 2) How does La Follette counter Wilson's position and is his argument valid? If so, what is the evidence?

Paper For Above Instructions

The two prompts offered for analysis reflect a shared concern with how competing ideologies, interests, and policies shape national direction in pivotal moments of American history. Prompt 1 centers on domestic policy—specifically how nativist sentiment and immigration restriction emerged and were institutionalized in the 1920s. Prompt 2 moves outward to foreign policy, examining the push and pull factors behind America's decision to enter World War I. Together, they illuminate how rhetoric, data, and political strategy interact to produce lasting policy outcomes and causal narratives about American identity, inclusion, and power. This paper argues that (a) the Dillingham Commission’s framing of immigration desirability—favoring Western and Northern European populations while deeming others as less desirable—helped legitimize and mold the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, though the Act also reflected broader domestic political pressures and economic concerns of the era (Ngai 2004; Daniels 1990). It also contends that (b) the Mexican immigration debate in the 1920s—as reflected in Box’s and Galarza’s arguments—exemplifies how racialized assumptions about labor, assimilation, and national belonging shaped policy preferences and enforcement strategies (Galarza 1964; Box 1928). In Prompt 2, the War Message by Wilson framed a moral and strategic rationale for intervention—rooted in the defense of democracy, self-determination, and the security of maritime commerce—yet its persuasive force was limited by domestic political constraints and competing visions of postwar order (Kennedy 1980; Wilson 1917). La Follette’s counterarguments, emphasizing caution against entangling alliances and nonintervention, exposed legitimate criticisms about war aims, economic interests, and democratic accountability; his critique remains a foundational reference for later isolationist and non-interventionist currents (La Follette 1917; Kennedy 1980).

On the historical evidence for Prompt 1, the Dillingham Commission’s report, and the contemporaneous legislative texts reveal a strong continuity between research findings, political rhetoric, and policy design. The Dillingham Commission, established to study immigration in the United States, argued that immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe and other non-Western regions differed in their potential for assimilation and economic contribution, implying that certain populations posed higher assimilation risk and greater social and cultural costs to the nation (Dillingham Commission Report, 1911-1912). This framing fed into the climate that produced the Immigration Act of 1924, which established national-origin quotas biased toward Northwestern Europe and effectively curtailed immigration from Asia and the rest of the world. Scholars such as Mae Ngai have argued that the Act crystallized a logic of racialized exclusion rooted in earlier research while masking broader political aims around national security and economic protectionism (Ngai 2004). In this reading, the Dillingham findings functioned less as neutral data and more as instrumental rhetoric that legitimized restrictive policy (Ngai 2004; Daniels 1990).

In the debate between Box and Galarza, the documents crystallize a conflict over the ethics and policy logic of Mexican immigration in the late 1920s. Box’s position—represented in 1928 arguments—tends to emphasize the need for orderly, controlled immigration to preserve economic stability and national cohesion, aligning with broader restrictive impulses of the era (Box 1928). Galarza’s 1929 critique centers on the lived experience of Mexican workers and the systemic inequities they faced in the United States, arguing that exclusionary policies could intensify exploitation and undermine human rights and labor standards (Galarza 1929). Taken together, Box’s emphasis on policy rationality and Galarza’s focus on human consequences illustrate a tension at the heart of immigration politics: the balancing act between economic needs, national security, and humanitarian concerns. The more persuasive argument, in this reader’s view, comes from Galarza, because his evidence foregrounds the real-world impacts of enforcement and the ethical costs of labor exploitation, a claim supported by later scholarship on the social costs of exclusion and the economic logic of guest workers (Galarza 1964; Ngai 2004).

Turning to Prompt 2, Wilson’s War Message articulates a case for intervention grounded in a mix of moral universalism and pragmatic security concerns. Wilson argued that Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare, violations of neutral rights, and the broader threat to democratic self-government justified American involvement to “make the world safe for democracy” and to secure a postwar order based on collective security and self-determination (Wilson 1917). The argument is compelling in its moral clarity and long-range vision; it also has strategic logic regarding the protection of maritime routes and the preservation of a liberal international order. Yet, its validity is tempered by the domestic political context—support for war was not universal, and economic and political considerations at home complicated a straightforward, moral crusade. Kennedy’s synthesis of Wilson’s foreign policy for the era acknowledges both the idealistic aspirations and the realpolitik constraints that shaped policy (Kennedy 1980). La Follette’s counterarguments, meanwhile, challenge the rush to war by warning against entangling alliances, emphasizing prudence, accountability, and the potential costs of foreign entanglements for American democracy and workers (La Follette 1917). His position is not anti-democratic in principle but cautions against allowing corporate and imperial interests to dictate foreign policy, a critique that remains central to debates about interventionism and non-interventionism (Kennedy 1980; La Follette 1917). The evidence shows that Wilson’s case carried moral authority and strategic logic, but La Follette’s critique highlighted legitimate concerns about the costs and aims of intervention, concerns that subsequent history would either validate or reframe depending on the geopolitical outcome and the design of the postwar settlement (La Follette 1917; Wilson 1917).

Thus, the two prompts together illustrate how U.S. policy in the early twentieth century was shaped by a complex interplay of empirical studies, moral rhetoric, class and labor dynamics, and strategic calculations. The Dillingham Commission’s findings provided a policy-securing frame for exclusionary immigration laws in 1924, while Box and Galarza highlighted the competing economic and humanitarian rationales in immigration debates. In foreign policy, Wilson’s wartime ideology and the postwar vision of a liberal international order faced counterarguments that warned of the costs and risks of intervention. The enduring lesson is that policy outcomes in this period reflected not only abstract ideals but also the incentives and constraints of domestic politics, economic interests, and transnational power dynamics. In depth analysis of these prompts reveals how the United States negotiated questions of belonging, security, and ethical responsibility—an ongoing negotiation that continues to shape immigration and foreign policy debates today (Daniels 1990; Ngai 2004; Takaki 1989; Kennedy 1980).

References

  • Dillingham Commission Report. (1911-1912). The United States Commission on Immigration: Report of the Dillingham Commission.
  • Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act). Pub. L. 68-139; 43 Stat. 141.
  • Ngai, Mae M. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton University Press, 2004.
  • Daniels, Roger. Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life. Harper Perennial, 1990.
  • Takaki, Ronald. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. Little, Brown, 1989.
  • Kennedy, David M. Over Here: The First World War and American Society. Oxford University Press, 1980.
  • Wilson, Woodrow. War Message to Congress, April 2, 1917. The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson.
  • La Follette, Robert M. Anti-War Speech, 1917. Robert M. La Follette Papers (available in edited collections and archives).
  • Galarza, Ernesto. Merchants of Labor: The Mexican Worker in the United States. Cantwell Publishing, 1964.
  • Box, John. Immigration Restriction 1928 (documented debate on Mexican immigration policy, 1928).

Related Assignments