150 years after American independence, a new war waged against who could land on our shores. To understand anti-immigration laws today, we must learn about their origins.
What makes immigrants accept lower wages is rather diffuse. The question is: what do only native workers have access to which must improve the incentive to labor that capital offers?
By 1924 that gap must have been insufficient to compensate for the known indocility of the (southern) European stock.
Or maybe we need to zoom out and consider the intentions of global capital then in the making.
I can't comment on the wage issue, since my article does not aim to address that. I'm also confused what you meant by "known indocility." I'm hoping that you're quoting a xenophobic 1924 sentiment here, and that's not actually what you believe.
This was an attempt to maybe explain why the US changed course on immigration in 1924: what were the pros and the cons, from capital's POV.
By indocility, I mean nothing other than what employers complained about: absenteeism, 'language' barrier, social habits they disapproved of (drinking...)... Anything that that was perceived to reduce work intensity and increase labor turnover. And for which the 'Americanization' of immigrants was deemed necessary, often resulting in very grotesque practices, such as Ford's melting pot ritual. https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/artifact/254569?AssetId=THF106481
Wow! This is something that belongs in a textbook!
Oh wow, thank you! ♥️
Excellent summary of the 1924 act and its consequences.
Thank you! 🙂
What makes immigrants accept lower wages is rather diffuse. The question is: what do only native workers have access to which must improve the incentive to labor that capital offers?
By 1924 that gap must have been insufficient to compensate for the known indocility of the (southern) European stock.
Or maybe we need to zoom out and consider the intentions of global capital then in the making.
I can't comment on the wage issue, since my article does not aim to address that. I'm also confused what you meant by "known indocility." I'm hoping that you're quoting a xenophobic 1924 sentiment here, and that's not actually what you believe.
This was an attempt to maybe explain why the US changed course on immigration in 1924: what were the pros and the cons, from capital's POV.
By indocility, I mean nothing other than what employers complained about: absenteeism, 'language' barrier, social habits they disapproved of (drinking...)... Anything that that was perceived to reduce work intensity and increase labor turnover. And for which the 'Americanization' of immigrants was deemed necessary, often resulting in very grotesque practices, such as Ford's melting pot ritual. https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/artifact/254569?AssetId=THF106481
What did you have in mind?