The articles Shut the Door, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and A Modest Proposal all pertain to population control and solutions to overpopulation within a nation’s borders, whether it applies to those within their boundaries or those seen as a difficulty outside of them. Shut the Door and the Chinese Exclusion Act were created to limit immigration into the United States from outside countries, while A Modest Proposal outlined a solution to overpopulation and poverty within its own citizens. All three of these articles contained what would be controversy in today’s society, although they may have been seen as viable solutions during the time period they were proposed in. Shut the Door was a speech given by a senator in 1924 on the congress floor which proposed to, simply, “shut the door” to outside immigrants and “Americanize” the ones already within the borders. Much like the Chinese Exclusion Act, this proposal was designed to keep out …show more content…
The author, Jonathan Swift, goes on to list many supporting reasons for his solution by using both logic and emotional means of persuasion. While it is understood to be more of a mocking hyperbole, the blatant coldness in the writer’s tone is both more convincing, yet more frightening than either of the other articles. All three articles focus on the age-old, yet ever-present human conflict of overpopulation, existing in what seems like almost every time and place. Recently, both Shut the Door and Chinese Exclusion Act show some resemblance to immigration acts which have been trying to get passed in our government. In conclusion, while those two articles show us what is possibly currently happening within our government, A Modest Proposal show us what we hope the world and society will never have to come to, no matter how dire the situation may
An unintended reform: The 1965 Immigration Act and third world immigration to the United States. Journal of American Ethnic History, 3(1), 9-28. Retrieved from
Describe the “New Immigration”, and explain how it differed from the “Old Immigration” and why it aroused opposition from many Native-Born Americans. Antiforeignism was not a new concept in America in the 1880s. It had begun in the 1840s when the first large influx of immigrants emigrated to America, predominantly from Ireland and Germany. The American, or “Know Nothing”, political party was created specifically for the sake of excluding and barring the newcomers from equal opportunities, especially with the case of the Irish in the northeast. Fast forward forty years later and the Irish and the German have become common place amongst the native born Americans and the new wave of immigrants emerges.
Annotated Bibliography Beadle, Amanda Peterson. " Top 10 Reasons Why The U.S. Needs Comprehensive Immigration Reform." ThinkProgress. © 2016 - Center for American Progress, 10 Dec. 2012.
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge assured Congress that “the immigrants who would be shut out… are those who bring the least money to the country and come most quickly upon private charity for support” (Doc. F). Influenced by racial prejudice, the government also restricted immigration by ethnicity. In response to growing anti-Chinese sentiment, the government decided that “the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order”; in accordance with the Chinese Exclusion Act, the government decided that “it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come… to remain within the United States” (Doc. B). America also excluded the Japanese after “an understanding was reached with Japan that the existing policy of discouraging emigration of its subjects of the laboring classes to the continental United States should continue” (Doc. H). The government expressed distaste towards immigrants as it viewed the large influx of foreigners as
Senator Charles Shumer, writing in an up front magazine, in 2016 says ¨we need to modernize and fix our immigration system, to ensure that the door to America remains as open to the future generations as it was for our ancestors.” What Sen. Shumer is saying here is that Once America had the doors open to people but now the government wants to close them. He is saying that the government should let immigrant have a path to citizenship so America can have the same reputation as in the past. America has always been a country of immigrants and what he is trying to say is that the immigration system must be fixed so we maintain the country this ways as it was for our ancestors. Now some might argue that this was the past but now we are in the future.
These immigrants were immensely different ethnically and culturally. This immigration resulted in nativism – the fear of immigrants – becoming a major issue. Ordinary citizens of the United States looked to both control and restrict immigrants with a number of laws including the Chinese Exclusion Act which was enacted in the year 1882 (Lamoreaux, 2010). Most of the immigrants resided in ethnic urban neighborhoods. Immigrants were also affected since most of them were poor and lived in poorer neighborhoods and slums where conditions were
And if they keep drawing food from us, they will keep having more people born and then they will need more food, so it turns into a never-ending cycle of overpopulation. I have talked about how these two writers butt heads with there different points on foreign aid, overpopulation, and immigration. You can’t really tell which on is more right but it seems to me they both make some good
As a result immigrants were required to take a literacy test, two laws were passed as well the “Emergency Quota Act of 1921” and the “National Origins Act of 1924”. The laws governed immigrants and limited the amount of immigrants into the United States. Immigrants were denied if they hadn’t passed the literacy test or if their given nationality in the U.S was at it’s limit. American’s “Golden Door” was closed (document
The initial use of logical examples, Hansen (2009) then looks to initiate the reader’s emotional view on the topic by dismissing the governments concern with the reader’s future generations. Hansen (2009) does this in around the middle of the essay by implying that the government “doesn’t give a damn about your children or grandchildren” (Hansen, 2009 p.434). This allows Hansen (2009) to strike an emotional conquest on readers, presenting that deception the government is providing. This emotional strike of not caring, promotes the readers that they need provide support for their future generations by initiating change.
As can be seen in documents A-H, from 1880 to 1925, immigration went from being the staple of the American culture to the common enemy of “native” Americans. In 1880 and before, immigrants were welcome to the United States with open arms, which is shown in document A with all of the foreigners flooding into the wide open gate of America. The purpose of document A was to advertise the acceptance of immigrants into the United States and all of the great things they would find when they arrived here. Document B displays that even until 1888, immigrants were viewed by the established Americans as a “double advantage”: helpful to the economy when needed and conveniently out of the way when unnecessary.
Humans have impacted the global environment significantly. Human populations have rapidly increased for the past few centuries. Imagine a world where sustenance is rare but people are plenty. Imagine the world where everyone's shoulders are touching one another and there is no room to move. “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift is an extremely sarcastic solution to a problem plaguing Ireland in the 1720s overpopulation.
Holocaust. Death. Suffering. These are but a few of the words that may begin to describe this tragic period in the history of man. The Perils of Indifference and Night are both publications by the Elie Wiesel, one of the many victims to the Holocaust, but one of the very few victims who lived to tell his story.
Each response is influenced by individual race, gender, and ethnicity. Despite immigration’s necessity to this, Jacob G. Hornberger’s “Keep the Borders Open” in which he argues the case of keeping borders always open “for people traveling inside the United States but also for people traveling or moving to the United States” is not correct (Hornberger, Jacob G. 1). Having open borders prohibits unity and dissolves individual identity; it also breeds anarchy within a nation. There must be order within a country and allowing everyone into an area strains resources, while no security creates chaos and mass terror. With open borders and thus overpopulation, a country will be unable to uphold its beliefs and will fall to disparities within social class, old prejudices, and government corruption.
Additional possible fallacies of the speech is, once people vote against immigration, the people who oppose this act believe this will solve all economic, and social problems. The possible immigration reform is suggesting, the illegal immigrants are saved from everything, and that it was in good faith to enter the country illegally. The speech will persuade people to rethink the advantages and the possible effects for voting against illegal immigration
Critical Analysis of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” In the work entitled “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift, the theme of social injustice is enhanced by the use of verbal irony to convey a charged message. The ambiguous title and introduction to Jonathan Swift’s masterpiece does little to prepare the reader for shocking content revealed later in the text. Swift’s work is powerful, poignant and persuasive because it strikes at the heart of the modern readers ethics, as it likely would have done for the author’s contemporary audiences. Jonathan Swift’s 1729 masterpiece is a satirical metaphor centered around the pervasive assertion, “the English are devouring the Irish.” Jonathan Swift gives a more comprehensive exordium concerning his work stating that is it “a modest proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents and country, and for making them beneficial to the public (Swift 1199).