US immigration policy without WWI?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
You mentioned eugenics in your post.
In the US, The influence of this belief can clearly be demonstrated in the Immigration Act of 1924 which severely reduced Asian immigration and immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Refer to the Wikipedia article for that law and you will see a pretty comprehensive description.
To my knowledge, the issue of eugenics wasn't actually directly raised in the Congressional debates over immigration restrictionism in the 1920s. However, it was raised elsewhere in the US during this time:


So, it's possible that US Congressmen and Senators knew about this issue and related the issue of eugenics to immigration restrictionism, but apparently they weren't actually willing to openly and publicly say this--else it would have appeared in the Congressional debates over immigration restrictionism during this time.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
I agree Eugenics was a major factor in U.S policy that ran far deeper than it is convenient for most to concede. Scientists, everyday citizens, and corporate entities were involved. For Example, the American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.

The first eugenics movement in America was founded in 1903 and included many of the best known biologists in the country: David Star Jordan was its chairman (a prominent biologist and chancellor of Stanford University), Luther Burbank (the famous plant breeder), Vernon L. Kellog (a world renowned biologist at Stanford), William B. Castle (a Harvard geneticist), Roswell H. Johnson (a geologist and a professor of genetics), and Charles R. Henderson of the University of Chicago.

Progressive social scientists were especially attracted to eugenic ideas. Scholars like Irving Fisher, Francis Amasa Walker, Henry Rogers Seager, Edward Alsworth Ross, John R. Commons, Sidney Webb, Charles Richmond Henderson, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and journalists like Paul Kellogg of the Survey and the New Republic’s Herbert Croly, all invoked eugenic ideas, especially to justify the exclusionary labor and immigration legislation that is a central legacy of the Progressive Era.

Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States' leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.

Novelist Virginia Woolf confided to her diary that “imbeciles” “should certainly be killed”; T. S. Eliot favorably reviewed eugenic articles from journals such as Eugenics Review; in 1908, D. H. Lawrence indulged in an extermination fantasy: “If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly, and then I’d go out in back streets and main streets and bring them all in, all the sick, the halt, and the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile at me.”

In his influential The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly of the New Republic put his case for a vigorous national government in eugenic language, arguing that artificial selection was superior to natural selection. The state, said Croly, had a responsibility to “interfere on behalf of the really fittest.” Croly required the qualifier “really” because, on the Darwinian account, the fittest are those with greatest reproductive success – and that was not at all what Croly had in mind. In an unsigned editorial for the New Republic in 1916, Croly was clear:

“We may suggest that a socialized policy of population cannot be built upon a laissez faire economic policy. So long as the state neglects its good blood, it will let its bad blood alone. There is no certain way of distinguishing between defectiveness in the strain and defectiveness produced by malnutrition, neglected lesions originally curable, or overwork in childhood. When the state assumes the duty of giving a fair opportunity for development to every child, it will find unanimous support for a policy of extinction of stocks incapable of profiting from their privileges.”

Even Helen Keller, who had benefitted so little from medical science and so much from old fashion human charity that allowed her to flourish as much as possible, shockingly wrote:

“Our puny sentimentalism has caused us to forget that a human life is sacred only when it may be of some use to itself and to the world.”

In 1915, she also called for “physicians’ juries for defective babies” in the pages of Croly’s New Republic.

"It is the possibility of happiness, intelligence and power that give life its sanctity, and they are absent in the case of a poor, misshapen, paralyzed, unthinking creature,”
Keller said, adding that allowing a "defective" child to die was simply a “weeding of the human garden that shows a sincere love of true life.”

The feminist Margaret Sanger had her view:

"Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes."


As did Theodore Roosevelt:

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce.”

The U.S. Supreme Court was explicit enough when Justices Louis Brandeis and William Howard Taft joined the infamous Buck v. Bell Supreme Court decision, where Oliver Wendell Holmes, a proponent of eugenics, opined that “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”…“Three generations of imbeciles,” they agreed, “is enough.”

One seldom-mentioned explosive fact is that German Nazis hyper-aggressively followed, not led, the American Progressive tradition in this regard. "Now that we know the laws of heredity," Hitler told a fellow Nazi, "it is possible to a large extent to prevent unhealthy and severely handicapped beings from coming into the world. I have studied with interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

The Progressive state of California was at the vanguard of the American eugenics movement, performing about 20,000 sterilizations, or one third of the 60,000 nationwide, from 1909 up until the 1960s.

While California had the highest number of sterilizations, North Carolina's eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs. An IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina. The North Carolina Eugenics Board almost always approved proposals brought before them by local welfare boards. North Carolina even gave social workers the power to designate people for sterilization. "Here, at last, was a method of preventing unwanted pregnancies by an acceptable, practical, and inexpensive method," wrote Wallace Kuralt in the March 1967 journal of the N.C. Board of Public Welfare. "The poor readily adopted the new techniques for birth control."

It is a sobering exercise to revisit the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1920’s, after which theologically-based science was ejected from the school curriculum. The textbook Civic Biology by George W. Hunter was openly racist and taught eugenics within that framework. It cited eugenic biologist Charles Davenport founder of the Eugenics Record Office who authored a 1929 work of scientific racism published as Race Crossing in Jamaica, which attempted to provide statistical evidence for biological and cultural degradation following interbreeding between white and black populations. If teachers taught from Hunter’s text today, they would be prosecuted. In Civic Biology, Hunter advocated both eugenics and segregation, writing that:

“Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country."


Even today, the subject of eugenics lurks just beneath the surface.

Co-discover of DNA Francis Crick reportedly wrote in a letter:

“The main difficulty is that people have to start thinking out Eugenics in a different way. The Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it is time something was done to make it respectable again.”

In his 1978 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, On Human Nature, scientist E. O. Wilson voiced support for a renewed program of eugenics. While he conceded a current limited understanding of human genetics, he maintained that in the future, when we have “almost unimaginably greater knowledge of human heredity,” we may be able to institute a “democratically contrived eugenics.” Just how democracy, which by definition is rule by the statistical average will be able to determine which superior traits will be selected for reproduction was left unexplained.

A Richard Dawkins 2006 quote is another example:

“…if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”

It seems to me that the root issue of eugenics is not the science, although that is unimaginably complex, but a normative question what is good and who is to decide.
The problems with forced and coercive eugenics are obviously extremely well-known and explain why exactly it is such a vile and repulsive thing to do. That said, though, theoretically speaking, there could be non-coercive forms of eugenics--such as when someone seeks a sperm donor or egg donor to reproduce with based on various desirable characteristics of this sperm donor or egg donor. That's also a form of eugenics--albeit a non-coercive form of this.
 
May 2019
366
Earth
A crisis in Europe could compel a lot of Europeans to move to the US
Quite a lot of east-european immigrants to the US in the early 20th century were not coming because of political crisis, but because of crushing poverty back home and a desire to find somewhere better to make a living. In Polish the wave of immigrants who went to North America during the late 19th-early 20th century are often called "za chlebem", which literally means they came for bread. I'm not much in to speculative history, but I think that with or without the crisis of WW1 in Europe, there would still have been plenty of east-european immigration to the USA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
Quite a lot of east-european immigrants to the US in the early 20th century were not coming because of political crisis, but because of crushing poverty back home and a desire to find somewhere better to make a living. In Polish the wave of immigrants who went to North America during the late 19th-early 20th century are often called "za chlebem", which literally means they came for bread. I'm not much in to speculative history, but I think that with or without the crisis of WW1 in Europe, there would still have been plenty of east-european immigration to the USA.
Agreed--just as long as the US didn't close its doors to them. There was already a sizable restrictionist movement in the US even before WWI--as evidenced by the fact that almost two-thirds of the US Congress supported a literacy test for immigrants in 1913 (and again in 1915, when the US was still neutral in WWI).
 
  • Like
Reactions: hyuzu
Jul 2019
163
Pale Blue Dot - Moonshine Quadrant
The problems with forced and coercive eugenics are obviously extremely well-known and explain why exactly it is such a vile and repulsive thing to do. That said, though, theoretically speaking, there could be non-coercive forms of eugenics--such as when someone seeks a sperm donor or egg donor to reproduce with based on various desirable characteristics of this sperm donor or egg donor. That's also a form of eugenics--albeit a non-coercive form of this.
Your example suggests a sound use of science with which I agree, but I am not sure it is actually Eugenics. As in other threads, I suspect we are back to definition challenges again. I looked at multiple definitions of Eugenics and there are implications of coercion – often back door implications.

Cambridge.org uses the word “allow:”

the idea that it is possible to improve humans by allowing only some people to produce children:

Dictionary.com is more subtle in its use of “discourage:”

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Wikipedia makes a good point in my opinion:

Edwin Black, journalist and author of “War Against the Weak,” claims eugenics is often deemed a pseudoscience because what is defined as a genetic improvement of a desired trait is often deemed a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined through objective scientific inquiry. The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect.

The areas I have highlighted refer to the concept of “good” – an area in which I believe we have been losing coherence for a long time, but also one that is absolutely critical to the idea of Eugenics. The whole question of values has been a rough spot for science ever since the implications of Darwin were recognized as corrosive to 19th century conceptions of morality (the good). Friedrich Hayek in his The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1952) went pretty deeply into the problem.
Hayek saw that researchers and reporters of the era were attempting to apply the highly successful methodology and claims of certainty found in the “hard” sciences - where practitioners of science attempted to eliminate the human factor from study so as to generate objective, repeatable, value free conclusions - to the realm of social science. However, Hayek noted, since the goal of social science is to understand human behavior itself the attempt to remove conceptual human factors (laden as they are with values, goals, judgments, means to specific ends, and even irrationality) from social science has proven both impossibly self-defeating and destructive to social science itself. Yet Eugenics falls into the interstices between physical science and social science that Hayek to which was pointing.

The biologist Richard Dawkins has proposed a difference between what he calls negative and positive eugenics. As he has explained it, negative eugenics is all about breeding bad things out for example certain hereditary diseases and positive eugenics is all about breeding good things in. Intelligently designed morality (Dawkins’ phrase) would have no problem with negative eugenics, Dawkins has claimed, going on to argue that the problem with positive eugenics comes about when it is state directed and government sponsored.

Here, Dawkins touches on your point about coercion – which is unquestionably a critical factor.

But still, I think there are multiple problems with what Dawkins says. Aside from the challenges of the scientistic notion of an intelligently designed morality by a man apparently unfamiliar with (or ignoring) the empiricist crisis triggered by David Hume’s Is-Ought problem in a culturally fractured age little concerned with morals, Dawkins, like so many others, has assumed, all evidence to the contrary, that the concepts of good and bad are just there for the taking.

Dawkins’ own contentious debates with his scientific peers belie the simplicity of his assumptions. He also glosses over the fact that some (most?) traits, like sickle cell, clearly have multiple implications even under our immature understanding today and thus present trade-off decisions that must be decided by someone. Science is a very long way from understanding the fantastically complex implications of the genetic code – just look at the evolving history of “Junk DNA.” But even if those scientific implications were crystal clear, the Is-Ought problem remains.

One more practical level, any student of history will know that Dawkins’ implied assumption that the government can be kept out of anything, especially something as powerful as a Eugenics program, is unrealistically naive in the extreme. Although Dawkins’ recent political comments are too new to be reproduced here, like many, he has been appalled over recent electoral decisions. So can he be so casual about keeping state coercion out of eugenics? This issue is especially thorny in the wake of the current cultural dominance of collectivism (usually a derivative of Hegelian-based Progressivism) where individuals’ freedom to decide is regularly dismissed in the name of the larger collective whole for whom the state speaks. But of course, as Aristotle noted, someone always rules in the state.

The well-known E. O. Wilson has also stumbled here in my opinion. In his 1975 book Sociobiology, Wilson asserted that “scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers.” Here was a classic case of Scientific Imperialism and Wilson’s use of the word “temporarily” was laughable – as if the challenging field of ethics were an object that could be moved in and out of a biologically-defined taxonomic category at will.

Furthermore, Wilson’s total program made it perfectly clear that there was nothing temporary about subsuming ethics within biology: "the humanities and social sciences shrink to specialized branches of biology." Whatever sociobiology MAY eventually tell us about human sociology (and it may be substantial just as B. F. Skinner learned much about a slice of psychology), to start out with a grab for the domain of ethics is not science, but philosophy, and reckless, overreaching philosophy at that. In his 1978 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, On Human Nature, Wilson also voiced support for a renewed program of eugenics. While he conceded a current limited understanding of human genetics, he maintained that in the future, when we have “almost unimaginably greater knowledge of human heredity,” we may be able to institute a “democratically contrived eugenics" - a concept that implies both coercion and a substantial level of ethical agreement

Dawkins and E. O. Wilson are not wing nuts. They are two of the most respected scientists we have seen in recent decades. In their grappling with the problems of Eugenics, we can sense the scope of the problem. If the political state feels is necessary to limit what drugs I may or may not take, it will surely demand a say in what I do with my gene structure – especially since that structure will to some degree be passed on to my descendants.

Thus, in my opinion, the coercion problem cannot be set aside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Dec 2017
357
Florida
There were several harsh anti-Chinese and anti-Asian immigration acts but I don't know of any specific prohibition of citizenship; you may be thinking of some of unpleasant clauses of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Certainly access to citizenship has been unequal.

Yes, there were marriage prohibitions-- " Miscegenation" laws varied by state; Wikipedia has as good an description as any of the mish-mash of regulations: Interracial marriage in the United States - Wikipedia.
The Immigration Act of 1924
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Jun 2017
734
maine
The Immigration Act of 1924
Yes, certainly that was the effect of the act. The Immigration Act limited the number of immigrants through a quota system. Asians were further limited by the "Asiatic Barred Zone"--however there was a specific exception made for Japanese and Filipinos. The Chinese Exclusion act expired in 1892 (although much of it was extended in ten year increments) and it harshly impacted Chinese already in the country. The Immigration Act (Johnson-Reed) was focused, as the name suggests, on immigration; the Chines Exclusion Act (and its extensions) severely limited citizenship) and the combination of the two certainly had a negative result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
Yes, certainly that was the effect of the act. The Immigration Act limited the number of immigrants through a quota system. Asians were further limited by the "Asiatic Barred Zone"--however there was a specific exception made for Japanese and Filipinos. The Chinese Exclusion act expired in 1892 (although much of it was extended in ten year increments) and it harshly impacted Chinese already in the country.
Japanese immigration to the US (other than perhaps to Hawaii) was actually restricted through a 1907 gentleman's agreement between the US and Japan:

 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
Quite true. Still the exemption did exist--on paper, anyway.
Paper exemptions aren't worth that much if the paper that they're printed on is worthless, though. :(

That said, AFAIK, Japanese were allowed to freely migrate to Hawaii--as possibly did Chinese--though I'm less sure about the Chinese part (after 1882, that is).