American Immigration and Ellis Island, Key to America's Greatness, Europe's Decline

JBGUSA

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
56
Location
NYC Area
Today, I took my almost 13 year old son on a voyage to New Jersey we will long remember.

We saw Ellis Island, the gateway through which more than 12 million immigrants poured into the U.S. between 1892 and 1924, 1,200,000 alone in one of those years, I believe 1908 or 1909. Ellis Island was not the only "gateway" but it was by far the largest. The "brain drain" that poured through Ellis Island and similar points were probably the major key to America's greatness and Europe's decline.

Before the 1890s the U.S. was but a blip on Europe's and thus (in their view) the civilized world's radar screen. The ceaseless warfare and religious persecution had the aim of controlling Europe, access to colonial resources and thus (in their view) the civilized world. Wars such as WW I and WW II were fought in that quixotic aim. Something not so funny happened on the way to the forum.

There were periods of major European emigration before, The Irish potato famine, political turmoil in Germany and famines in Scandinavia sent smaller waves to our fair shores during the late 1840's and early 1850's. What happened from 1892 on was one of the great migrations of human history. America's growing prosperity, and unprecedented political freedom and stability began to become known in Europe, with the greater spread of information. Some of that information demonstrably false, mind you, such as America's streets being paved with gold. Still, the people willing to foresake to familiarity of speking their language of birth, in many cases leave the houses and towns they were born in for a new, unfamiliar world, with a different language up and left. By and large, these were the people that a new country needed to build it; people with drive, in some cases imagination, in some cases intellect, but people willing to give rather than take, to work and work hard.

After going to Ellis Island, I took my son to dinner in the "Ironbound" section of Newark, and had the best Portugese food I've had this side of the Alentejo region of Portugal. These people are contributors to our country that give it spice and zest.

My paternal grandmother's first worlds were in either Magyar or Yiddish. Her son, my father, was a professional till his death who spoke perfect English, who built a thriving interior architecture practice from nothing. My mother's maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian refugee from the Czar's army, tired of the senseless and endless wars. I am now an acomplished attorney. Our President is the son of a Kenyan farmer. In more modern times, the better people of Asia, the Caribbean, and yes even the Muslim world come here rather than stay there.

Thus not only was this a great migration; it was a huge brain drain. It continues to this day.This is and always has been a country of immigrants.
 
What do you mean by "Europe's decline"? Europe's doing all right. You're forgetting that other countries have had masses of immigrants as well. Britain, for example, is just as immigrant-descended as the US is. In fact, these days, any European country is probably going to have a higher proportion of immigrants in it, because a resident of any EU country can migrate to any other EU country, whereas it's extremely difficult to migrate to the US even if you want to. It's hard to get an American work permit.
 
No offence dude, but I think that's a little bit nationally biased and naive. First of all, why was it a "brain drain"? Why would the intelligent move to America? I believe these people were doing fine in Europe. And is there a reason why the immigrants would have been exceptionally hard working? Also to me it seems you are exaggerating the religious percecution (either it wasn't so bad in 1890 or I've really missed something?) and wars.

As for why euros aren't superpowers anymore, I think it might just have something to do with two, devastating world wars. Superpowers come and go. America will also decline sooner or later. To me it seems America has already started declining.
 
More to the point, I don't see that international power is a reasonable measurement of "flourishing" or "decline" anyway. To my mind, a country is flourishing when it provides a good standard of living for its inhabitants, and it's in decline if it fails to do that. Wielding mighty global power has nothing to do with that, and is no more a measure of the success of a country than jockstrap size is a measure of the success of a man. I've lived in three countries in my life (so far), and the best ones to live in were the ones with the least overseas power. In the case of the US, it's hard to see that it's doing any better on this score than most European countries.
 
Britain, for example, is just as immigrant-descended as the US is. In fact, these days, any European country is probably going to have a higher proportion of immigrants in it, because a resident of any EU country can migrate to any other EU country, whereas it's extremely difficult to migrate to the US even if you want to. It's hard to get an American work permit.
Surely you jest. The US's lack of a social benefit network, especially back then, meant that people that came here came to work. Most of the recent immigrants to the UK are benefits-drawing Muslims. Their immigrants are a net negative; ours are a net positive.

No offence dude, but I think that's a little bit nationally biased and naive. First of all, why was it a "brain drain"? Why would the intelligent move to America? I believe these people were doing fine in Europe. And is there a reason why the immigrants would have been exceptionally hard working?
Because of hereditary restrictions on what they could do, and other causes. And the immigrants would have been exceptionally hard working because these people were willing to leave behind parents, friends and familiar settings, and to learn a new language, to better themselves.

Also to me it seems you are exaggerating the religious percecution (either it wasn't so bad in 1890 or I've really missed something?) and wars.
THe persecutions were actually quite bad then. Russia had bloody "pogroms" where howling drunken mobs of peasants would attack the Jews and the law enforcement officials would stand by idly. Anti-Jewish restrictions and riots were quite common.
As for why euros aren't superpowers anymore, I think it might just have something to do with two, devastating world wars. Superpowers come and go. America will also decline sooner or later. To me it seems America has already started declining.
It was the wars and the loss of quite huge numbers of their better people.
 
Surely you jest. The US's lack of a social benefit network, especially back then, meant that people that came here came to work. Most of the recent immigrants to the UK are benefits-drawing Muslims. Their immigrants are a net negative; ours are a net positive.
What? Did you miss a history lesson or something? There sure wasn't a social benefit network here in Finland in 1890 and I daresay there wasn't one anywhere else either.

And the immigrants would have been exceptionally hard working because these people were willing to leave behind parents, friends and familiar settings, and to learn a new language, to better themselves.
Either that, or they simply couldn't get a job in their old country. Besides, how does leaving family and friends behind make someone hard working?
THe persecutions were actually quite bad then. Russia had bloody "pogroms" where howling drunken mobs of peasants would attack the Jews and the law enforcement officials would stand by idly. Anti-Jewish restrictions and riots were quite common.
And the Russians made up the majority of immigrants? Besides, there's always been antisemitism, even in the US (though I admit it has been worse here in Europe).
It was the wars and the loss of quite huge numbers of their better people.
"Better people"? First of all, there was overpopulation in Europe, so people moving into the US wasn't that big deal. And the idea that the people moving into the US were "better" people, I'm afraid that's something you just made up. The people moving in to the US were people who had nothing here. I'm sure it would be nice to think Americans are somehow better but I suggest you study history. At least the people who moved to America from Finland were people from the lower classes: "loiset" (eng: parasites) and "mäkitupalaiset" (rent-farmers or whatever they're called, these people didn't own their farms). These people had no future in Finland at the time. It was no real loss for us: there was no work or need for them. And I doubt they were exactly intellectuals or "better people" either. I believe the situation was somewhat similar in other European countries as well.
 
The only real "brain drain" on a large scale across the Atlantic, from Europe to America, happened in the run up to and during World War II.
 
Surely you jest. The US's lack of a social benefit network, especially back then, meant that people that came here came to work. Most of the recent immigrants to the UK are benefits-drawing Muslims. Their immigrants are a net negative; ours are a net positive.

Polish workers are not really that bad, neither are Muslims, except the violent ones and terrorists.

Because of hereditary restrictions on what they could do, and other causes. And the immigrants would have been exceptionally hard working because these people were willing to leave behind parents, friends and familiar settings, and to learn a new language, to better themselves.

It is often misinterpreted that some part of low class people are hard working, and some are just "natural criminals". You can easily accuse minorities as the source of crime by pointing a graph of crime rate broken down in ethnicities. It proves nothing that certain ethnicity is hard working and certain is criminals.
THe persecutions were actually quite bad then. Russia had bloody "pogroms" where howling drunken mobs of peasants would attack the Jews and the law enforcement officials would stand by idly. Anti-Jewish restrictions and riots were quite common.

Jewish population in Eastern Europe mass emigrated to British Palestine.
It was the wars and the loss of quite huge numbers of their better people.

That's the real brain drain. Yours are labor drain.
 
Most of the recent immigrants to the UK are benefits-drawing Muslims. Their immigrants are a net negative; ours are a net positive.

That is plain false. Where are you getting this info from, the Daily Mail? Believe me, most immigrants in the UK right now probably work much harder than the average native. If all the eastern Europeans, antipodeans, and south Asians were to leave, London would grind to a halt. Besides which, if anyone really did come to the UK simply to skive on benefits, they'd be mad, because benefits are so low it is extremely difficult to live on them.

I don't see what relevance the religion of the immigrants is, either.
 
:lol: You could as well argue that the people who went to America were mostly ultrareligious sickos, criminals and unemployed, uneducated farmers. America didn't make much difference in the european wars. :p
But thats of corse one-sided, too.
 
Thus not only was this a great migration; it was a huge brain drain. It continues to this day.This is and always has been a country of immigrants.
So is France, and has been for about as long as the US.

And the European export of poeple started well before the US became a magnet for imigrants. The US got the south Italians around 1900. Around 1850 millions of north Italians emigrated to the contries around the easten Mediterranean, Turkey, Egypt, Syria etc.

Neither process has a lick to do with the success of failure of either the countries people emigrated to or from. Aside from the bloody obvious one, that the north American continent was one huge real estate bonanza where Europe could export its surplus population. But the key word is "surplus".
 
Are you kidding me?
Can you please tell me how WWI would have been won without American shipping to Britain, and WWII... Well...
 
Are you kidding me?
Can you please tell me how WWI would have been won without American shipping to Britain, and WWII... Well...

France and Britain could have probably won World War I by themselves or they would have made peace without any winners or loosers.
And in World War II Germany was already defeated by the Sowjet Union. The western front was a minor battlefield.
 
France and Britain could have probably won World War I by themselves or they would have made peace without any winners or loosers.
At the risk of totally derailing the thread...no. If France and Britain made a status quo peace in the west, they would still be leaving the Germans in control of a huge chunk of Eastern Europe, hell they'd be unchallenged beyond the Vosges. And since it was American warm bodies that fueled the Hundred Days Counteroffensive, and American munitions provided to supplant shortfalls in Anglo-French production...
Gigaz said:
And in World War II Germany was already defeated by the Sowjet Union. The western front was a minor battlefield.
Whoo, let's get back into revisionism! And have this exact same argument! Again! If Stalin had the Eastern Front wrapped up so well, why was he constantly screaming for Western aid in opening up other fronts?
 
And the European export of poeple started well before the US became a magnet for imigrants. The US got the south Italians around 1900. Around 1850 millions of north Italians emigrated to the contries around the easten Mediterranean, Turkey, Egypt, Syria etc.
That's quite interesting, actually. What was the reason for this immigration? I can see that Mediteranean trade must have growing quite dramatically back then, but I would have thought that the immigration would have been more East>West and South>North.
 
Surely you jest. The US's lack of a social benefit network, especially back then, meant that people that came here came to work. Most of the recent immigrants to the UK are benefits-drawing Muslims. Their immigrants are a net negative; ours are a net positive.

Congratulations, that's probably the most ill-informed statement I've seen on the forum in quite some time. Might I suggest taking a look around the Office for National Statistics website to educate yourself in such matters?

Neither process has a lick to do with the success of failure of either the countries people emigrated to or from. Aside from the bloody obvious one, that the north American continent was one huge real estate bonanza where Europe could export its surplus population. But the key word is "surplus".

That part about surplus population is important since Schama in his history of Britain points out that at the time America was being used as a dumping ground for Britain's unwanted the population was only about 5 million, and that was considered too many. Our current population is closer to 60 million!
 
:lol: - actually I've heard opinions exactly opposite - that US is a country of low-life scum who was kicked out from Europe or hoped for great riches and easier life overseas: criminals, paupers and bounty hunters; searchers of El Dorado.

I'd say both accounts are equally true and false.
 
Whats the point of this thread btw? Woooo Amurica?

During the pre-WWI era, vast numbers of rural Europeans left the land that they could no longer live on, heading to pastures new and the big cities. Since European farmland was pretty full those who still wanted to farm went to America (tremendous brain drain there), and lots went to wherever cities with jobs were, 4 million Irish went to America whilst 2-3 million went to British cities, millions of Germans left for new shores but millions more crowded into the Ruhr region, millions of Italians left Italy for America...and Brazil, Argentina, France etc.

America was a nice place with lots of open land, resources, jobs, and pleasent climate, but still only about 60% of the great European outflux ended up there. There wasn't anything magically exceptional about the country or the people who went there, it just had lots of room and was fair and good to all comers. With the current US immigration system, and if rampant romanticism like that in the OP controls policy further, that may change for the worse.
 
I was just reading about this in Carl Degler's book.

Immigration was of course very important to the US it contributed to the development of its industries and it cities in the mid to late 1800's and early 1900's.

The thing is its highly mistaken to call it a brain drain. There were a couple great waves of immigration, the first one from northern Europe, England, Germany, Scandavia, and such and these guys tended to be farmers, Germans moved to the midwestern farming commounities for instance. Then later on the Irish came with the Potato famine, they were unskilled laborers they worked in the factories for poor wages, and squalid living conditions.

Later on the immigrants from Eastern Europe, Italy, and Greece were all peasants and farmers. Most of them flooded into American cities living in ethnic neighborhoods until they could get themselves out of the slum.

These weren't for the most part skilled laborers, engineers, scientists, or men of education or intellectual pursuit. They were more than anything else what in Europe would be referred to as peasants, the poor, or possibly scum. They boosted American workforce taking the dirty and dangerous jobs in the factories, moved out west to become farmers, Europe wasn't losing a middle class or educated people.

Eventually of course they moved up to blue collar or white collar jobs, and and into higher socio-economic strata's over the course of generations. But they started out at the bottom, of that have no doubt.
 
Back
Top Bottom