The Fear of the “Other”
The current climate of heightened anxiety and, at times, outright paranoia surrounding immigration in the United States echoes a recurring theme throughout its history: the fear of the “other.” This fear, often fueled by economic anxieties, social upheaval, and political opportunism, has manifested in various forms, leading to discriminatory policies and the persecution of specific groups. Examining historical parallels reveals a disturbing pattern of unjustified actions driven by this very paranoia.
One early example is the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, driven by economic competition in the West and deeply ingrained racial prejudice. Chinese immigrants were scapegoated for economic woes and portrayed as an unassimilable threat to American society and its labor force. This resulted in the first significant law restricting immigration based on ethnicity, denying entry to Chinese laborers and barring Chinese immigrants from naturalization. The consequences were devastating, marked by social isolation, economic hardship, and the constant threat of violence and deportation.
The period following World War I witnessed another surge of nativist paranoia, culminating in the Palmer Raids of 1919–1920. Fueled by the “Red Scare,” a widespread fear of communist and anarchist ideologies, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer orchestrated a series of raids targeting suspected radicals, many of whom were recent immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Civil liberties were trampled upon as thousands were arrested without warrants, detained indefinitely, and in some cases, deported based on flimsy evidence and their perceived political beliefs. The paranoia surrounding foreign-born radicals, often conflated with legitimate dissent, led to gross violations of individual rights and a climate of fear.
During this same period, the suppression of the German language in the United States during World War I became another manifestation of wartime paranoia. As anti-German sentiment surged, many states passed laws restricting the teaching and use of the German language in schools, churches, and public spaces. German-American communities faced suspicion, harassment, and pressure to assimilate or abandon their cultural heritage. Businesses with German names were rebranded, and some individuals were attacked simply for speaking their native tongue. This suppression demonstrated how fear-driven nationalism could result in widespread discrimination against immigrant groups.
The Sacco and Vanzetti trial in the 1920s further exemplifies how anti-immigrant sentiment could permeate the justice system. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Italian immigrants and self-proclaimed anarchists, were accused of murder during a robbery. Despite questionable evidence and significant doubts about their guilt, the prevailing anti-immigrant bias and fear of radicalism likely played a significant role in their conviction and eventual execution. Their case became a symbol of the injustice that arises when prejudice and paranoia cloud judgment.
World War II saw yet another extreme case of xenophobia with the Japanese internment camps. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans—many of whom were U.S. citizens—were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps under the suspicion that they might act as spies or saboteurs. There was little evidence to support these claims, yet thousands were deprived of their homes, businesses, and civil rights solely based on their ethnic background. This episode remains one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties in U.S. history, illustrating how fear-based policies can lead to severe injustice.
The “Red Scare” of the Cold War era again saw suspicion fall heavily on immigrant communities and those with dissenting political views. The fear of Soviet infiltration and communist subversion led to widespread surveillance, blacklisting, and loyalty oaths. While the threat of espionage was real, the paranoia often extended far beyond legitimate security concerns, targeting individuals based on their ethnicity, national origin, or perceived political leanings. This climate of suspicion created a chilling effect on free speech and fostered an environment of intolerance.
Even seemingly innocuous phrases like “Irish need not apply” in employment advertisements from the 19th and early 20th centuries reveal a pervasive undercurrent of prejudice. Irish immigrants, often fleeing poverty and famine, faced discrimination based on their ethnicity, religion (Catholicism), and perceived social status. This seemingly simple phrase encapsulated a broader societal paranoia about their supposed lack of work ethic, propensity for drunkenness, and threat to the existing social order.
These historical examples demonstrate a recurring pattern: economic hardship, social change, or geopolitical tensions create fertile ground for fear and scapegoating. Immigrant communities, often seen as “outsiders” and easily identifiable, become targets of this paranoia. This fear, amplified by political rhetoric and societal biases, leads to the implementation of discriminatory policies, the violation of civil liberties, and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.
The current anxieties surrounding immigration, while manifesting in contemporary ways, are not without precedent. Understanding the historical consequences of similar periods of paranoia—the erosion of rights, the fracturing of communities, and the long-lasting damage to a nation’s ideals—serves as a crucial reminder of the dangers of allowing fear to dictate policy and prejudice to cloud our judgment. Recognizing these historical echoes can hopefully guide us toward a more just and humane approach to immigration, one that values inclusivity and rejects the destructive power of unfounded paranoia.