Posted on 04/04/2006 5:34:55 PM PDT by neverdem
Today's rancorous debate over immigration has a parallel in the nativist reaction to the mass Irish immigration in the mid-19th century.
Spurred by the potato famine that began in 1845, 3.5 million mostly destitute Irish migrated to America by 1880 - about 7 percent of the population of 50 million. By contrast, today's 11 million unauthorized immigrants, of all nationalities, constitute just 4 percent of our population.
Contemporary immigration foes, like former Gov. Dick Lamm and Rep. Tom Tancredo, claim America can't absorb so many foreign-born without fatal damage to our economy and culture.
Yet, history shows we did just that. Today, there are 43 million Americans of Irish ancestry, a key element of the vibrant alloy that is America.
Today's nativists argue we can't compare today's illegal immigrants to the Irish, because the Irish came here legally. That's technically true, but the 19th century wave was just as uncontrolled, because America had virtually no bars to immigration in those days.
Kenneth Ackerman's book, "Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York," details how the desperate Irish were welcomed at the docks by the political machine that provided the only social safety net in that era.
Tweed minions would help the newcomers find housing and work and, if there was an election in the offing, they would swiftly be naturalized as citizens in mass ceremonies by Tweed's judges, so they could vote for their benefactors.
Cartoonist Thomas Nast, who hated Irish and Catholics with equal fervor, pandered to the nativist bigotry by depicting Irishmen as drunken, subhuman brutes. The accompanying Nast cartoon depicts the role immigrants played in supporting Tweed by showing an Irish thug and a Catholic priest carving up the Democratic Party goose that laid the golden eggs.
But though the Irish were despised, they were still admitted through America's golden door. That's because Americans needed them to do our dirty work.
The first generations of Irish worked largely at unskilled and semiskilled occupations, but their children found themselves working at increasingly skilled trades. By 1900, when Irish Americans made up about 8 percent of the male labor force, they were almost a third of the plumbers, steamfitters and boilermakers. Their places at the bottom of the ladder were taken by newly arrived laborers from southern and eastern Europe.
Today, those dirty, low-paying, jobs are being taken by Latinos. But if history is any guide, the daughter of that Latina who scrubs your floor today may be the doctor who delivers my granddaughter's baby a generation hence.
To some, that is a frightening prospect. But I think Clio, the muse of history, would join with Lady Liberty herself to say:
Bienvenidos, Americanos nuevos.
Bob Ewegen is The Denver Post's deputy editorial page editor.
I am always amazed that people are no longer educated, but are politicized. Do your own research. There are three recognized races. There are several ethnic groups within the racial groups. Ethnic considerations are not assumed to be "racist". Try Anthropology 101 for starters, and if you choose to throw "race" around, at the very least, get a basis.
LOL! You got that right!
You just haven't had good Irish cooking, have you?
Not really. When most of the Irish came, (1830s to 1870s) there was no such thing as an Ellis Island facility and immigration was not really controlled in any way. Ships docked at there destinations be it New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore or where ever, the the passengers basically got off and went where they could. There were customs offices that looked a cargo for duties, but no INS service that checked passengers. It was pretty much an "open borders" policy.
If I'm not mistaken the members of the 69th NY were killed by the score at Sharpsbury by the 6th Louisiana. Both Irish.
"You assume I am politically correct because I take exception to someone using the term "wetback?" Guess what, it doesn't just apply to South Americans. If I saw someone calling any race or "ethnic group" by putdowns, I'd call them on it too. It doesn't matter if YOU think it's racist, it matters if those around you do."
These are foreigners, sneaking across our borders.
It is a smuggling term about foreigners, I don't see any reason to be overly sensitive about our language describing criminal behavior of foreigners against the US.
I think it is a pretty mild term for some criminal that is a foreigner, sneaking into your country.
Calling the French frogs when we get annoyed at them seems much worse, since they are just citizens acting in their nations own interest, without committing crimes on our soil.
Activists on the left have made it that way, but I say we shouldn't let them dictate the language of our debate.
I agree with you completely on that, and we see it everyday, as with leftists trying to censor legitimate arguments by labeling them, 'hate speech'.
Technically speaking, 'wetback' isn't racist, but I'd maintain that its derogatory. I'll argue about illegals with an illegal- but chances are I'll lose the argument, or at least their attention, if I call them a 'wetback'. I'd like to think that people turn to FR to form opinions, and language can make a difference
The Irish, the Germans, and the previous waves of immigrants came here to be . . . . . . . . . . . . proud Americans.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
In 1840 there were probably no immigration laws or they were not really of any national interest at the time.
Most Irishmen who came here wanted to be Americans, spoke English, and were given a pick and shovel as soon as they stepped off the boat or a rifle and musket and put in the military.
Back then the U.S. was largely underpopulated and there was an immensity of open land and a great need of labor - skilled and unskilled.
Comparing the socio-economic times of the mid nineteenth century with those of the early twentieth century is like comparing apples and oranges.
But those individuals who don't believe in borders, ignore the reality of the war on terror and its border implications, and equate individuals who have no wish to be Americans - just to suck off the American public and steal American dollars to funnel into some third-world rathole are totally out of touch with reality and arguing with them over this subject is like spitting in the wind.
Immigration should be based on the quality of the food they immigrants bring over.
they = the
You've got a point. Mexican food is more complex than most others, and has French, Italian, Portuguese, and native American influences. Combine the best of all those and it can be very good. I just think Irish food has its own charm, especially when done right. Mexican food has plenty of dubious sausage, anyway! (So does Italian, etc...)
I'm a guy still mourning the demise of the Cuban-Chinese restaurants. Now there was some complex food combinations if you go creative while ordering.
I believe all my ancestors, since the census began, were classified as "W" for white, at least on those that are public record (1930 & before).
I see this a different way, that's all. The ability to deride that which is destroying us can be an important tool. It's one of the first tools the politically-correct movements have sought to destroy, along with the other tools they want to take from us, such as firearms.
Anyway, you argue your way, I'll argue mine. We don't have to agree.
What a load of Blarney
"Human nature" would also have us copulating on street corners, defecating in the streets, and murdering our enemies with our bare hands. Our "souls" allow us to rise above that. And, as for "preference for one's own "tribe", human nature would have you preferring Charlie Manson to Henry Bonilla.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.