Given the widespread anti-Catholic sentiments in the US, why was the US so eager to allow a lot of Catholics to move to the US?

Jun 2017
2,891
Connecticut
#31
Given the widespread anti-Catholic sentiments in the US, why was the US so eager to allow a lot of Catholics to move to the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries? I know that the US had large-scale Catholic-phobia as late as 1928, when Al Smith's Catholicism cost him a lot of votes during his presidential run. However, this simply raises the question of why exactly the US let so many Catholics move into the country in the first place. I mean, Imperial Germany was also Catholic-phobic during this time but unlike the US it never opened its doors to large numbers of Catholic immigrants. Why was the US different?
They weren't there were entire parties like the No names based on anti Catholic bigotry. In Germany the situation was a bit different since Catholics voted as a bloc. Anti immigration there was government policy required to be rubber stamped by a Protestant aristocracy and a Protestant majority Recihstag whose power was in jeoparady if that changed. In US while large percentages of the population would oppose immigration large parts of the country would in terms to actually stop the immigration. That didn't happen until the 1920s which was perhaps the xenith of mainstream American racism.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2017
2,891
Connecticut
#33
And yet, somehow it happened anyway. There must have been someone in the US who wanted this to happen.
The US political system requires large majorities to oppose something in order to stop it. It does not require large majorities to keep things the way they are.

Anyhow anti immigration basically destroyed the ocean travel industry was a disaster.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2017
2,891
Connecticut
#34
What do you mean by this part?
To get bills through the House and Senate and approved by the President is very difficult. It's why I get so annoyed when people praise the Constitution, it's a terrible document yet people treat it like a religious text and it's founders like Jesus or Muhammad because they've been brainwashed. Not that I support anti immigration of course, talking about why it's difficult to pass stuff.

In the 1880s they did pass anti Chinese immigration laws though. But yeah more to oppose Atlantic based immigration whether it be Catholics, people who economically benefited off of Catholic labor or industries that benefited off of sending Catholics to the new world which were almost destroyed by this legislation. Look at ocean liners, almost no new major liners(I said almost) were built in the aftermath of these laws and Cunard and White Star were forced to merge. Industry was almost destroyed.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,926
SoCal
#35
The US political system requires large majorities to oppose something in order to stop it. It does not require large majorities to keep things the way they are.

Anyhow anti immigration basically destroyed the ocean travel industry was a disaster.
In order to limit immigration, one would need either a majority of the US Congress and a supportive US Prez or two-thirds of the US Congress if the US Prez is unsupportive of this.

Of course, if immigration would have remained a state issue, then it would have been more difficult since the US Constitution is extremely hard to amend.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,926
SoCal
#36
To get bills through the House and Senate and approved by the President is very difficult. It's why I get so annoyed when people praise the Constitution, it's a terrible document yet people treat it like a religious text and it's founders like Jesus or Muhammad because they've been brainwashed.
Two-thirds of the US Congress (if the US Prez is unsupportive) isn't too much, though.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,926
SoCal
#38
Yes it is. That's an incredibly difficult margin to receive for something that is even a little contentious. That's the same margin needed for constitutional amendments, though you also need states.
Constitutional amendments are much harder because you also need the approval of three-fourths of all US states. It's very difficult. In contrast, bills passed by the US Congress don't require US state approval.

Also, all you would need is a majority in the US Congress if you will actually have a supportive US President.
 
Jun 2017
2,891
Connecticut
#39
Constitutional amendments are much harder because you also need the approval of three-fourths of all US states. It's very difficult. In contrast, bills passed by the US Congress don't require US state approval.

Also, all you would need is a majority in the US Congress if you will actually have a supportive US President.
Well it's easier but amendments are almost impossible. It's a very low bar to surpass. When you look at the amendments and take out the Bill of Rights(which was a precondition to the Constitution being approved at all), the Civil Rights amendments(which the opposing faction were forced to agree to same as Bill of Rights), the trivial changes that no one was going to really disagree with(like the 11th, 12th and the one moving terms forward a few months), and the reversal of an amendment banning perhaps the most popular consumer product of all time, you're left with about 10 real changes in the history of this country using that system.

The amendment process is not only hard it is semi-impossible. That doesn't mean the general system to pass legislation isn't a very high threshold because it's easier than that insane system. A majority is tough as well. And there's chamber rules(at least currently who knows back then) that turn the 50 to 60 in at least one chamber and while that might not have always existed different obstacles existed at different times.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,926
SoCal
#40
Makes sense, I suppose.

Also, good point about Catholics voting as a bloc in Germany. That might have made Protestants in Germany more fearful of additional Catholic political power in comparison to Protestants in the US. That, and the fact that a lot of Protestants also historically moved to the US--which at least somewhat cancelled out the large-scale Catholic immigration to the US. In contrast, were Germany to accept a lot of immigrants, it wouldn't have a large source of Protestant immigrants but would certainly have a large source of Catholic immigrants.