ects to the political, social and moral standard of the community assuming that the current group of immigrants is of inferior quality to the past (Fetter). Prescott Hall has aptly stated these apprehension as his observation dictates that the immigrants are among the lowest class in their native country and the addition of such to the American community would degrade the quality of its people (1906).
Particularly, they stand as rival to the resources that should be abundantly enjoyed by the Americans including labor opportunities and hefty wages. In simple economic concept, the addition of immigrants to the labor force, adds to the current supply of labor which dampens its price.
Other social perils such as crime, juvenile delinquency and even illiteracy are also among the ones mentioned by Hall, concluding that the immigrants post higher number in these figures. Owing to America’s philatrophic inclination, the absence of restriction could have been an act of extending help to the non-Americans, providing them opportunities for a better quality of life, however one observation says that even this process is a vain endeavor in altering the condition of the poor from other countries (Fetter).
Those who are against the immigration restriction are those who believe that the immigrants are not perils, rather contributors to the American society, mentioning the likes of Andrew Carnegie, Samuel Gompers and James J. Hill to include the list of desirable immigrants (Warne). Warne believes that immigration has brought the country the industrious, the God-fearing and the courageous men from around the world (1916). Mr. James Bryce has also excellently concluded that the assimilation of Americans with other races actually enlivens intellectual fertility and boosts the creative power of the country to a higher level of production (1891).