I would contend there's still some significant differences between then and now that are the root of some of the issues Tuck.
For one, while America is still technically a "young" country, it has experienced a number of generations throughout its time thus far (about 12 since the founding). With each passing generation in the country more and more of a societal culture and identity has developed and the more the country has essentially found "itself". In the earliest years of the country we were a frontier land, filled largely by people who were fresh into the country or born within a small few generations. The culture and identity of the country was still forming, much like its borders and cities in and of themselves were still in a formative period.
The time period you're talking about is three to four generations into the countries existance, compared to 12 currently. Stirring up an already cloudy and chaotic situation is different than doing it to one that is far more established. To give a sports analogy, if they had gone into the Panther's or Jaguars 4 years into their existance and tried a major change in their power structure, management structure, etc it'd likely work reasonably well with people being reasonably open to it as the team was new and fresh to a point and experimentation to find an identity wouldn't be out of the question. However going into say, the Steelers organization, and tryin the same thing would likely be met with far harsher reactions because at this point its been long established and working reasonably well without a great NEED for a massive change of culture or upheaval.
The error in thinking here is that you are ignoring the fact that the colonies had existed for
far longer than many current states have when the wave of immigration I'm talking about occurred. Your analogy is flawed because you are looking at the entry into the NFL as the barometer, not the existence of the team. If the Jaguars had existed for longer than the steelers had, but were only in th eleague for four of those years, the process would be far different, and perhaps even
more difficult than altering th esteelers, because perhaps the steelers were once run according to the philosophies that are being implemented in the restructure.
To explain, let's take Boston again as our example.
Established in 1630. This wave of immigration started in 1847. This means there were about 217 years between the establishment of Boston and the wave of immigrants I'm talking about. 217 years is a long time and Boston's identity had been entrenched for quite some time when the Micks showed up.
However, let's look at Phoenix and Arizona for a second.
In 1847 (the year that was the start of the major Irish influx into Boston), Arizona was a
part of Mexico! It wasn't until the following year, 1848, that the majority (but not yet all) of Arizona became owned by the US. It wasn't until 1853 that the rest of it became owned by the US. It wasn't until 1912 that Arizona became a US state and officially a part of the US.
Phoenix itself wasn't founded until 1861. This gives 149 years between Phoenix's inception and today's "immigration crisis".
Which one was more "entrenched" at the time of their wave of immigrants? The city that had existed basically unchanged for 217 years or the one that has existed for 149?
Even more importantly, the Irish had no real connection to Boston prior to their migration there, while Mexicans have been a part of Arizona for longer than Arizona has existed.
I think the attempt to compare the past to the present as if they're equal situations is to ignore the plethora of changes societally, culturally, and logistically to where we were at that time.
I wouldn't even say they are equal. I'd say that it was
more of an upheaval back in the day than it is today.
You're correct its not simply about the numbers. Its the lack of a common language. Its the over crowding of already crowded areas. Its the reduction in service and seeming quality of life that its seemed to have imparted in many places. Its the strain its putting on our various government systems. Its the wanton violation of the law while there are others willingly and patiently waiting their turn. Its the increasing encroachment of a foreign culture into not localized locations but country wide.
None of these things are any differnet than they were in the past. German, Irish, Chinese, Italian, whatever immigrants went ALL over the country. The railroads weren't built by natural-born Americans.
Just as we see today, Immigrants simply congregated in the largest numbers in the most likely places: Large cities. The immigrants today are doing the same exact thing. Why else would Illinois and New York have two of the highest Mexican immigrant populations in the country? California and Texas make sense, due to the borders they have with Mexico, but the only reason that Illinois and New York make the top five list is because of Chicago and NYC.
Californian and Texas are there because they've got lots of big cities and they are on the border.
When I compare the past to now, it's ebcaus e
nothing has changed. The same lame arguments are presented as they were back then about the immigrants being a threat to the culture. They're violent, they steal, they are criminals, yada yada, yada.
We are seeing an exact duplication of what happened in the mid 19th to early 20th centuries right now. Nothing has really changed.
The only thing that has changed is that people today have revised the history to create a whole slew of mythical imaginings about how wonderful immigration was viewed in teh past and how the immigrants back tehn magically gave up their languages and cultures and became happy americans without anything changing.
It's all a fairy tale. That
never happened.
Hell, if anything, it's
better today. There's indoor plumbing and other things that keep cholera levels and outbreaks down and such.