Nativism in America: The Truth Behind their Fears

It was the morning of October 24, 1871 when the dead bodies of three Chinese men hung from places near the heart of downtown Los Angeles. One hung from the wooden awning over a sidewalk, another from the sides of a wagon parked on the street. The last body hung across a gate that led into a lumberyard. This was the aftermath of the Chinese Massacre of 1871, where rioters killed 21 Chinese immigrants and set 25 Chinese laundries on fire.[1] Though there was a mob of 500 native citizens, only ten white men were convicted, and the sentences against them were overturned on appeal due to technicalities.[2] This massacre was the culmination of years of prejudice against Chinese immigrants, and while it this particular incident targeted Chinese immigrants, it is one of many examples of nativism in history. Though nativism is defined as a policy that favours native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants, and reflected as American exceptionalism in the present day, nativist attitudes has reflected bias and prejudice. Nativism in the United States supports three main misconceptions about immigrants: they are dangerous, they threaten the workforce, and they are unable to assimilate. While these arguments are recycled with each new wave of immigrants, they have never been proven to be true. Throughout America’s history, nativist behaviour is prominent through the Know-Nothings party, Anti-Chinese sentiment, the Ku Klux Klan, and the current xenophobic attitude towards Mexican immigrants. No matter the origins of the immigrant group, Nativist fears have never demonstrated any truth.

Though the United States prides itself on being the land of the “free,” it has a long history of nativism that dates back to the 19th century. Perhaps the most well-known sign of nativism in the United States that surfaced during the Antebellum era was the Know-Nothings party. Starting in 1845, the Irish Potato Famine motivated more than a million Irish and German Catholics to emigrate because of growing unemployment.[3] The influx of nearly three million Irish and German immigrants in the 1830s introduced more people of the Catholic faith to America.[4] As a result, a secret society was formed that was united by xenophobic hostility to immigration. Native-born Protestants felt threatened by the new immigrants because they believed that the Catholic Church represented tyranny and the potential to be subjugated by a foreign power. Furthermore, many Americans were appealed by nativism because they believed that immigrants often created slums and turned to crime with their misdeeds. Many Know-Nothings felted threatened by these immigrants because they blamed society’s ills on the stereotypes of “whiskey-guzzling Irish” and “beer-swilling Germans”.[5] Competitions for jobs also increased as more labourers arrived. The flood of these immigrants expanded the labour pool tremendously, and nativists argued that the foreigners competed unfairly with the native-born because they were willing to accept any job that was offered to them. They believed that the immigrants created economic consequences for local workers because they pushed American workers out of jobs and forced them to accept lower pay. Through the years 1850 to 1855, the Know-Nothing Party was the fastest growing party in the United States, and even outstripped the Republican party.[6] The Know-Nothings also believed that the Catholic immigrants would be unable to assimilate because, as Europeans coming from a different culture that respected class distinctions, they would support slavery.[7] Know-Nothings believed that this, coupled with the stereotypes of the German and Irish immigrants, would pose a threat to the American way of life. This party is an example of anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment, centered around the belief that “new immigrants” were unassimilable because of their ethnicity and culture.

One of the most violent incidents caused by the Know-Nothings Party was the Nativist Riots of 1844, where anti-immigrant mobs in Philadelphia attacked Irish-American homes and Roman Catholic churches.[8] This riot set off a wave of violence in American cities, and was provoked by the determination of nativists to use xenophobia for political gain. Even if this party was not coherent enough to establish any legislation, they set the basic framework for nativist behaviour in the later centuries. Ultimately, when party leaders failed to actually reduce immigration, party members lost faith in the leaders and turned to other parties to solve their problems. However, despite their shortcomings in the political field, the Know-Nothings serve as the first example of how cultural nativism can be tailored towards political goals. In order to further promote their rhetoric, the Know-Nothing party linked nativism to American values in a manner that convinced the audience that nativism was also consistent with American culture. Perhaps this is also why acts of nativism are often labelled as acts of patriotism. Their nativist spirit will later be revived through other eras of prejudice against immigrants, and set the foundation for the three misconceptions that immigrants were dangerous, threatening the workforce, and unable to assimilate to American culture. 

Following the time period of the Know-Nothings, anti-Chinese sentiment also reflected the three nativist claims against immigrants. From 1850 and 1860, almost 50,000 Chinese immigrated to the United States for jobs on the railroads and in the mining industry.[9] In one situation, the unsolved murder of Elsie Sigel in 1909 was blamed on the Chinese in general because a Chinese person was a suspect.[10] As a result, the media rushed to portrayed Chinese men as dangerous to young white women, which further illustrates the nativist behaviour that portrays immigrants as dangerous, despite the fact that the crimes against the Chinese, such as the aforementioned Chinese Massacre of 1871, far outnumbered any potential threat from said immigrants. There was also an economic downturn in 1870 that increased labor competition between the Chinese and native-born.[11] Chinese immigrants competed with whites for employment, and often were willing to work for lower pay. Because of that, there was much resentment against them by the native population. Furthermore, the native resentment against Chinese came from the perception that the ethnic group was “unassimilable”, with “vicious customs and habits”.[12] Their reason behind a Chinese person’s inability to assimilate was blamed on their physical appearance, dress, culture, and hairstyle. Thus, the three arguments against immigrants were once again used to channel native prejudice against foreigners.

What made the anti-Chinese sentiment different from the Know-Nothings was the fact that there were legislation proposed to target and humiliate the Chinese. The political movement against the Chinese was called the Workingmen’s Party, and was led by an Irish-born sailor named Dennis Kearney. The party was a strong force that supported passing legislation against Chinese immigrants. Legislation that were passed against the Chinese included the Chinese Exclusion Act, which forced the Chinese to obtain certificates to prove their eligibility to live and work in the United States. This act reflects the nativist claim that the Chinese immigrants were threatening the workforce, because the law targeted a specific ethnic group to limit their access for work. Furthermore, there was also the Scott Act in 1887 that prohibited many Chinese who left the country to return, despite the fact that some Chinese were legal citizens and residents. Closely following that came the Geary Act in 1892, which denied bail to Chinese, and required all Chinese to obtain a certificate of eligibility to remain in the United States.[13] These laws made the Chinese vulnerable in the judicial system. There were similar movements against other Asian communities, justified by nativists characterizing immigrants as inherently different by being “immoral, subversive, and servile”, and thus, impossible to assimilate.[14]

After the anti-Chinese sentiment, a new wave of nativist behaviour appeared through the revival of the Ku Klux Klan. Originally founded in 1866 by ex-Confederate soldiers, it was 50 years later that William Joseph Simmons revived the Ku Klux Klan and spread its message of hate to include Catholics, Jews, and foreigners. By 1925, there were between three million to eight million Klansmen who donned the white robes of the Ku Klux Klan.[15] Klansmen argued that immigrants were taking jobs away from white people, and diluting the racial purity of American society. They supported bills such as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, which introduced limits to European immigration for the first time in the United States history. Their hatred towards foreigners stemmed from the belief that anyone who was not white and Protestant was not truly American. The revival of the KKK reflected a society that was struggling once again with immigration. One might realize the hypocrisy of their argument, considering that immigrants from the very beginning have populated the United States.

Now, the United States is once against facing a similar situation with Mexican immigration, and reacting in a disturbingly similar fashion to its predecessors in history. Mexican immigration was unrestricted until the 1920s — not because American nativists were more tolerant of them over other immigrants, but because of economic profit. American policymakers became aware that “almost every sector of the economy depended heavily on the bracero”, a bracero being a Mexican laborer allowed into the US for a limited time as a seasonal agricultural worker.[16] There were similar xenophobic and nativist attitudes directed towards Mexican migrants, with arguments based on a Mexican immigrants inability to assimilate into mainstream society. Despite this, many agricultural and industrial lobbies waived Mexicans from immigration laws in order to profit from their cheap and prosperous labour. However, in 1929, when the stock markets crashed and unemployment skyrocketed, United States citizens targeted Mexicans specifically.[17] Local and federal officials launched raids and campaigns to deport Mexican immigrants, including many families and workers who had entered the United States legally. These campaigns, which included Mexican children who were American citizens, continued throughout the 1930s and was estimated to have deported over 1.8 million people.[18] However, immigrants from Mexico continue to arrive in the United States, and the increased presence of such migrants drew out the same racist and nativist attitudes that had been directed towards Asians and Europeans before.

Though today’s nativism is less likely to be directed towards Asians, Europeans, or Catholics, and instead towards undocumented immigrants who are predominantly Mexican, Central American, and Muslim, the rhetoric of the modern nativism also reflects the three misconceptions of immigrants, centered around the idea that they are dangerous, and an economic drain on society while also being unable to assimilate. The perception that they commit crimes at higher rates than the native-born still reigns supreme amongst many Americans.[19] There is also a perception that immigrants take jobs away from the native-born and waste government resources without paying taxes. Furthermore, many nativists reflected past beliefs that the Mexican immigrants couldn’t assimilate to American culture. These arguments are also evidently false. First of all, pertaining to the argument that immigrants are unable to fully assimilate into society, a Stanford University study managed to measure cultural assimilation by analyzing data on the names that parents choose for their children. For example, a person named Hyman or Vito would be considered a child of an immigrant; whereas children named Clay or John were very likely to have native parents. Therefore, a child’s name signals their cultural identity. The study showed that after 20 years in the United States, half of the gap between the choice of names between immigrants and natives had disappeared, which suggests that the gradual adoption of more native-sounding names is a part of the process of assimilation.[20] By seeing how immigrants name their children, it may imply lesser or more assimilation. Therefore, the study shows that assimilation is possible for any immigrant group, no matter which culture or background they come from.

Secondly, the argument that immigrants are taking jobs from the native people is disproven by the rejection of the “Lump of Labour Fallacy”. This fallacy is based on the misleading assumption that there is a fixed amount of jobs available, and that reducing standard work hours can create more jobs.[21] The counterargument to this fallacy centers around the fact that skilled immigrant workers offer potentially new abilities that native workers do not have. Furthermore, immigrants as a labour force can create jobs because they become consumers the moment they enter the United States. Thus, they cause an expansion of demand, which helps to generate more jobs directly or indirectly. Scott B. Sumners, a professor at Bentley University, commented that, “There’s simply no way that California fruit and vegetable producers could pay enough money to attract America workers…Their output would be replaced by imports. Instead, they’d switch to crops that do not require significant farm labor. Thus, deporting illegals will not create new jobs for American workers.”[22] Sumners suggests that it is impossible for immigrants to take jobs from native people if their very presence generates more employment; subsequently, this suggests that the nativist’ economic arguments against immigrants are faulty and illogical.

Finally, the argument that immigrants are detrimental to the safety of native citizens is statistically untrue. The current United States President, Donald Trump, proclaimed during a press conference on June 22, 2018:

So here are just a few statistics on the human toll of illegal immigration. According to a 2011 government report, the arrests attached to the criminal alien population included an estimated 25,000 people for homicide, 42,000 for robbery, nearly 70,000 for sex offenses, and nearly 15,000 for kidnapping. In Texas alone, within the last seven years, more than a quarter million criminal aliens have been arrested and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses. You don’t hear that. (Eisenhower)

In response to President Trump’s claim, a professor of sociology named Michael Light pointed out that the president was combining two issues that should not be combined into one, and also misusing statistics.[23] To put it into perspective, Light proposed the claim that women were less violent than men. If one argued against the claim by stating the amount of crimes done by women, it still does not contradict the argument that men are more violent than women. In this case with illegal immigrants, President Trump implies that immigrants are more dangerous than native citizens by only citing statistics on the amount of crimes done by illegal immigrants. However, Trump’s statistics do not actually support his argument, because he did not compare the crimes of illegal immigrants with native citizens. In fact, the Cato Institute posted a study that concluded, “Illegal immigrants are 47 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives.”[24] Furthermore, numerous studies done by other researchers discovered that the crime rate committed by immigrants overall are no higher than non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants do not lead to higher rates of violent crime.[25] Therefore, from these statistics, it is evident that the claim that immigrants are hazardous to the safety of native citizens is unfounded and disproven. It is acknowledged, however, that there are not nationwide crime statistics categorized by immigration status in the United States, but the research that is available have mostly estimated that the relationship between crime and illegal immigrants are connected to lower crime rates.[26]

In conclusion, the same three arguments that immigrants are dangerous, a threat to the workforce, and unable to assimilate are applied to each new wave of immigrants based on fear and not fact. History often repeats itself from time to time, and in this case, nativism is a hand-me-down policy that is rewrapped under different packaging material every time there is an influx of immigrant population. Overcoming American nativism is a daunting task because of its extensive and pervasive history in the United States. One key difference between the nativists now and before is the fact that today’s nativists have an outlet in the form of the current President, who not only seem to agree with their arguments, but actively supports legislation aiming to implement nativism. Those who oppose nativism must actively advocate for immigration reform — a reform that can satisfy the needs of the labour market, provide a means in which immigrants can legally enter the United States without being persecuted, and move to legalize undocumented immigrants while discouraging future undocumented immigration. It is only through this kind of reform, which will require a complex approach and a more positive public opinion on immigrants, that the United States can possibly combat its deep-rooted nativism. Through this, the United States could achieve a potentially brighter and better future instead of relapsing to its nativist past.

[1] Young, Julia G. “Making America 1920 Again? Nativism and US Immigration, Past
     and Present.” Journal on Migration and Human Security 5, no. 1 (2017):
     1-10. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/
     233150241700500111.

[2] Lui, Mary Ting Yi. The Chinatown Trunk Mystery: Murder, Miscegenation, and Other
     Dangerous Encounters in Turn-of-the-century New York City. 2nd ed.
     Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007.

[3] Fasulo, David F. “Nativism and the Know Nothings: Should the United States
     Restrict Immigration?” May 1, 2013. Issues & Controversies in American
     History. Infobase. http://icah.infobaselearning.com/
     icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=134411 (accessed May 3, 2019).

[4] Briggs, Amy. “The Know-Nothings: The United States’ First Anti-Immigration
     Party.” National Geographic. Last modified July 2017. Accessed March 26,
     2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/
     2017/07-08/know-nothings-and-nativism/.

[5] Fasulo, “Nativism and the Know-Nothings”

[6] Fasulo, “Nativism and the Know-Nothings”

[7] Fasulo, “Nativism and the Know-Nothings”

[8] Schrag, Peter. “The Unwanted: Immigration and Nativism in America.” Immigration
     Policy Center. Last modified September 13, 2010. Accessed March 12, 2019.
     https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/
     Immigration_and_Natvism_091310.pdf.

[9] Young, “Making America 1920 Again”

[10] Lui, “The Chinatown Trunk Mystery”

[11] Young, “Making America 1920 Again”

[12] Lui, “The Chinatown Trunk Mystery”

[13]  Young, “Making America 1920 Again”

[14] Young, “Maknig America 1920 Again”

[15] WGBH. “The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.” American Experience. Last modified 2015.
     Accessed May 5, 2019. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/
     flood-klan/.

[16] Young, “Making America 1920 Again”

[17] Young, “Making America 1920 Again”

[18] Young, “Making America 1920 Again”

[19] Young, “Making America 1920 Again”

[20] Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. “What History Tells Us about
     Assimilation of Immigrants.” Stanford Public Policy Program. Last modified
     April 25, 2017. Accessed March 28, 2019. https://publicpolicy.stanford.edu/
     news/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants.

[21] Hejny, Helga. “The Lump of Labour Fallacy.” Academia.edu. Accessed May 8, 2019.
     https://www.academia.edu/7683047/THE_LUMP_OF_LABOUR_FALLACY.

[22] Sumner, Scott. “Farm Jobs and the ‘Lump of Labour’ Fallacy.” Foundation for
     Economic Education. Last modified February 21, 2017. Accessed March 6,
     2019. https://fee.org/articles/farm-jobs-and-the-lump-of-labor-fallacy/. 

[23] Light, Michael T., and Ty Miller. “Does Undocumented Immigration Increase
     Violent Crime?” Wiley Online Library. Last modified March 25, 2018.
     Accessed April 17, 2019. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/
     1745-9125.12175.

[24] Landgrave, Michelangelo, and Alex Nowrasteh. “Incarcerated Immigrants in 2016:
     Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin.” Cato Institute. Last
     modified June 4, 2018. Accessed March 8, 2019. https://www.cato.org/
     publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/
     their-numbers-demographics-countries-origin.

[25] Graif, Corina and Robert J. Sampson. “Spatial Heterogeneity in the Effects of
     Immigration and Diversity on Neighborhood Homicide Rates.” Homicide studies
     vol. Last modified July 15, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2911240/

[26] Graif, “Spatial Heterogeneity in the Effects of Immigration”

Bibliography

• Baer, Friederike. “German Americans, nativism, and the tragedy of Paul Schoeppe, 1869-1872.” The Journal of Civil War Era 5, no. 1 (2015): 97+. Expanded Academic ASAP (accessed March 28, 2019). https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A416302433/EAIM?u=santacatalina&sid=EAIM&xid=7d03f2f3.
  • This was found in the Gale database, so it is credible. Friederike follows the Schoeppe case, which includes the death of Maria Steinecke and the persecution of her German physician, Dr. Paul Schoeppe. After being sentenced to death, many German Americans protested and said Germans in America suffered from nativism the most out of any immigrant groups. Friederike focuses on whether Schoeppe was rightfully condemned, and where such a public outcry came from.

• Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. “Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States.” Journal of American Ethnic History, vol. 17, no. 4, 1998, p. 114+. Expanded Academic ASAP, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A21148395/EAIM?u=santacatalina&sid=EAIM&xid=0a4d73ef. Accessed 14 Mar. 2019.
  • Found in the Gale database, so this article is credible. Briggs gives an analysis from the book “Immigrations Out”, and offers up the main argument that nativists recognize the priority of citizens over foreigners. Briggs offers many specific events that exhibited nativist behaviour, including proposition 187 in California. Briggs focuses on making sure that essays that argue against nativism are more factual, fair, and less opinionated.

• Briggs, Amy. “The Know-Nothings: The United States’ First Anti-Immigration Party.” National Geographic. Last modified July 2017. Accessed March 26, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2017/07-08/know-nothings-and-nativism/.
  • This web page was found in the National Geographic website’s History Magazine. Amy Briggs is the Executive Editor of National Geographic History magazine; therefore, the source is credible because it comes from a nationally renowned organization. She provides background information about the Know-Nothings, and more specific anecdotes of actions done by the Know-Nothings.

• Fasulo, David F. “Nativism and the Know Nothings: Should the United States Restrict Immigration?” May 1, 2013. Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase. http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=134411 (accessed May 3, 2019).
  • This source was taken from an InfoBase called Issues and Controversies in American History, which contains award-winning and leading online reference materials. This source provides an in-depth introduction to the Know-Nothings Party, and proceeds to list specific dates and events that pertain to the Know-Nothings.

• Graif, Corina and Robert J. Sampson. “Spatial Heterogeneity in the Effects of Immigration and Diversity on Neighborhood Homicide Rates.” Homicide studies vol. Last modified July 15, 2009. Accessed May 5, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pms/articles/PMC2911240/
  • This source is credible because it comes from the National Center for Biotechnology, from the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Graif and Sampson preformed a study between the relation of immigrant and crime rates. Their research sheds light on the imigration-homicide nexus, and it is evidence that disproves the misconception that immigrants are dangerous.

• Hejny, Helga. “The Lump of Labour Fallacy.” Academia.edu. Accessed May 8, 2019. https://www.academia.edu/7683047/THE_LUMP_OF_LABOUR_FALLACY.
  • Academia.edu is a commercial networking website for academics. This platform allows papers to be published, shared, and monitered for their impact. Hejny is credible because she is a faculty member at Anglia Law School in Anglia Ruskin University. She explains about how the fallacy is based on the misleading assumption that there are only a fixed number of jobs.

• Landgrave, Michelangelo, and Alex Nowrasteh. “Incarcerated Immigrants in 2016: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin.” Cato Institute. Last modified June 4, 2018. Accessed March 8, 2019. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/their-numbers-demographics-countries-origin.
  • This source is credible because it comes from the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. Michelangelo Landgrave is a doctoral student in political science at the University of California, Riverside. Alex Nowrasteh is a senior immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. The work focuses on showing that immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans.

• Light, Michael T., and Ty Miller. “Does Undocumented Immigration Increase Violent Crime?” Wiley Online Library. Last modified March 25, 2018. Accessed April 17, 2019. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175.
  • This source is credible because it comes from the Wiley Online Library, which is one of the largest and most authoritative collections of online journals, books, and research resources, covering life, health, social, and physical sciences. This passage comes from Light and Miller’s cohesive paper of Criminology, and this specific passage focuses on describing how President Trump misused statistics when talking about Mexican immigrants.

• Lui, Mary Ting Yi. The Chinatown Trunk Mystery: Murder, Miscegenation, and Other Dangerous Encounters in Turn-of-the-century New York City. 2nd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007.
  • In her book, The Chinatown Trunk Mystery, Lui offers specific anecdotes describing the relationship between the Chinese and Non-Chinese population in America. She focuses on the murder of Elsie Sigel, and the aftermath of racial danger that arose following her death targeted at her male Chinese lover, Leon Ling. As a former curator of the Museum of Chinese in the Americas in New York City, she offers a valuable insight into the public’s response to the presence of Chinese immigrants during the time of the Chinese Exclusion era.

• Pineda, Richard. “The New Nativism: Proposition 187 and the Debate Over Immigration.” Argumentation and Advocacy, vol. 46, no. 3, 2010, p. 170+. Expanded Academic ASAP, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A263439886/EAIM?u=santacatalina&sid=EAIM&xid=5f4e3965. Accessed 14 Mar. 2019.
  • This article is from Gale database, so it is credible. Pineda offers a review and summary from Robin Dale Jacobson’s book, The New Nativism: Proposition 187 and the Debate Over Immigration. This article offers a region (California) specific debate that exhibited nativist behaviour, and discusses the prevalence of fears about growth tied to immigration and a sense of deteriorating quality of life in communities impacted by undocumented immigration.

• Sanchez, George J. “Face the nation: race, immigration, and the rise of nativism in late twentieth century America.” International Migration Review, vol. 31, no. 4, 1997, p. 1009+. Expanded Academic ASAP, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A20608701/EAIM?u=santacatalina&sid=EAIM&xid=b760fc81. Accessed 14 Mar. 2019.
  • This article was found in gale database, so it is credible. Sanchez focuses more on the contemporary part of nativism, and explains the rise of nativism in the more recent years (the 20th century). He gives more personal anecdotes of asian and latino victims of nativists. His claims of policy might be a little hyperbolic, but he provides interesting narratives and opinions.

• Schrag, Peter. “The Unwanted: Immigration and Nativism in America.” Immigration Policy Center. Last modified September 13, 2010. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/Immigration_and_Natvism_091310.pdf.
  • Schrag is credible because he contributes to The Nation, Harper’s, The Los Angeles Times, and other publications. The publisher is the Immigration Policy Center, a prominent and nationally known center from American Immigration Council. Schrag introduces his views on nativism by linking nativism to as early as when Americans began to consider themselves “a city upon a hill”. He focuses on nativist policies, and covers nativist behaviour throughout American history. He finishes with comments on nativist culture in our current legislation, and emphasizes the fact that America is a nation of immigrants.

• Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. “What History Tells Us about Assimilation of Immigrants.” Stanford Public Policy Program. Last modified April 25, 2017. Accessed March 28, 2019. https://publicpolicy.stanford.edu/news/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants.
  • This source is credible because it comes from the Stanford Public Policy Program, which is an institution that is known for its credible research. The source disproves the misconception that immigrants are unable to assimilate by using data of immigrant names. The research provides an interesting and unique way to measure cultural assimilation as accurately as possible.

• Sumner, Scott. “Farm Jobs and the ‘Lump of Labour’ Fallacy.” Foundation for Economic Education. Last modified February 21, 2017. Accessed March 6, 2019. https://fee.org/articles/farm-jobs-and-the-lump-of-labor-fallacy/.
  • This source is credible because it comes from the Foundation for Economic Education, which is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation and has been trusted by parents and teachers to teach sound economic principles and relevant and worldly daily online content. Sumner is an American economist who teaches at Bentley University. His insights on the Lump Labour Fallacy relate directly to the crisis of undocumented immigrants in the United States today.

• WGBH. “The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.” American Experience. Last modified 2015. Accessed May 5, 2019. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/flood-klan/.
  • This source is credible because American Experience has been television’s most-watched history series. They create documentaries that have been offered many awards, and are well-known for their work on American history. They offer a background into the actions of the Ku Klux Klan during the 1920s, and described the origin and rise of the Klansmen. The provide key anecdotes about specific members of the Klan, including William Joseph Simmons, who played a major role in the revival of the Ku Klux Klan.

• Young, Julia G. “Making America 1920 Again? Nativism and US Immigration, Past and Present.” Journal on Migration and Human Security 5, no. 1 (2017): 1-10. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/233150241700500111.
  • This article was found in the gale database, so it is credible. Young offers insight into the similarities of nativism back in 1920s and today. She cites specific historical events, such as immigration waves and the Know-Nothings party. She then proceeds to expand on nativist attitudes towards Asian immigrants and Mexican immigrants, before completing her timeline of nativism with the current Trump administration. She finishes her journal with solutions to counteract nativism in the present day.