by his own constitution and by every principle of justice. Others also believed that the immigrant population benefited the country by providing for an influx of human and other capital which facilitated the economic growth, development, and prosperity of the U.S.Arguments offered against immigration focused on the "differences" of new groups. For the most part, early opponents of liberal immigration policies such as the Native American Party argued that the country stood in imminent peril from the rapid and enormous increase of the "body of residents of foreign birth, imbued with foreign feelings, and of ignorant and immoral character who receive the elective franchise and the right of eligibility to political offices." Others argued that the new immigrants harmed American society because they were largely uneducated, impoverished, unskilled, and in many instances, strongly under the control of Catholic and Jewish religious beliefs. A very real element of early opposition to specific groups of immigrants focused upon Catholics (the Irish and the Italians), Eastern European Jews, and other groups stereotypically perceived as inferior to Anglo-Saxon stock. Arguments against immigration in the period between the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century tended to focus on such issues as the adaptability of diverse ethnic groups to American culture and on concerns that the new immigrants would lack the capacity for adaptation. Typical views against immigration held that: 1) foreigners lower the general plane of intelligence, efficiency, and orderliness; 2) foreigners increase alcoholism, crime, and immorality; 3) barriers of speech, education, and religious faith causes societal divisiveness; and 4) immigrants add to the number of poor in the country, tend to be illiterate, and to cause overpopulation in cities.Early settlers of the United States were originally a homogenous mixture of predominately white, Anglo-Saxon, ...
