Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Immigration Restriction


The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first time America ever limited the immigration of a person based on country of origin. Is this morally, diplomatically, and economically sound? Are there alternative solutions that are more "PC"?
Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. ElisaDecember 8, 2009 at 3:48 PM

    The Chinese Exclusion Act was neither morally or diplomatically sound, although it was economically at the time. The United States wanted to stop giving away jobs to the Chinese, but they should of limited immigration from all countries instead of just one. This would of prevented any uproar from one group saying that they were being outcasted and would of been more equal to all groups.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Derek DongDecember 16, 2009 at 1:43 PM

    I agree with Elisa, saying that it was not moraly or diplomatically sound, but it was economically sound. It was economically sound, because the Chinese provided cheap labor, and the Americans did not like that because it was hard to compete with them. Also, the Chinese just came to mine to benefit for themselves and go back to China. They did not benefit the US that much.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PriyankaDecember 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM

    I agree with Elisa and Derek in that the Chinese Exclusion Act was economically sound but not morally right. The big businesses wanted the cheapest labor that they could find, so the owners didn't mind the immigrants as much as the middle class and low class Americans that were competing with the immigrants for jobs. Since, the government wanted Americans to benefit they created the Chinese Exclusion Act. Unlike Derek and Elisa, I think this was also diplomatically sound. The Chinese were the largest group of immigrants that were causing job competition at that time. So, it makes sense that the U.S. government would only make a law against them. If other ethnicities proved to be causing similar problems, then the government would probably have extended the Chinese Exclusion Act to include others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. deeMarch 24, 2010 at 5:45 PM

    i agree with everyone that it was not morally or diplomatically sound because it is discrimination which is not good diplomacy and telling people that dont belong somewhere based on race is very wrong moraly. idk if it was economicaly sound because they worked for less money as derek said which seems like it would have boosted the economy but on the other side it createds competition for jobs with ameicans. i believe it would have been pc if they extended it to all other cuntries instead of just one because that seems more fair.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)