Philanthropy’s Long, Complicated Involvement in Immigration

Nothing better symbolizes our nation’s welcoming hand to immigrants than the Statue of Liberty. But without philanthropy, that iconic figure would not have a perch overlooking New York harbor.

The enormous sculpture was itself a gift from the people of France, funded not only by the country’s local governments, but also by donations from thousands of schoolchildren and descendants of French soldiers who had fought in the American revolution. A French copper company even contributed the sizable amount of plating needed for the statue’s exterior.

In 1884, American newspaper magnate Joseph Pulitzer led what has been described as the “first major crowdfunding project” to raise money for the statue’s pedestal. It took in more than $100,000 from 160,000 donors. Joining the effort was the poet Emma Lazarus, whose famous words — “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free” — bedeck the statue’s base. The poem, “The New Colossus,” was donated by Lazarus for the fundraising campaign.

These endeavors make up one of the earliest — and least controversial — of the many ways in which American philanthropy has engaged with immigration. Others have provoked more debate. Donors and the organizations they supported have often differed sharply over not just tactics but also the larger question of how welcoming the United States should be to immigrants. These sometimes vitriolic disputes continue today, including in the Chronicle. But with the foreign-born share of the population now as high as when the Statue of Liberty was erected (13.7 percent), the philanthropic world is not likely to lose interest soon — nor should it.

Immigration has always raised a variety of concerns: legal, educational, economic, humanitarian, cultural, and not least of all in the minds of some, the question of what it means to be an American. Philanthropy offers a pragmatic way for a country that embraces immigration — unlike many others — to seek and try out solutions to these concerns.

At one end of philanthropy’s involvement with immigration are its efforts to help immigrants succeed in their new country. Perhaps the most famous of these attempts originated with Andrew Carnegie, who came to the United States as a penniless boy from Scotland and became the wealthiest man in the country. He helped finance close to 2,000 public libraries to give new arrivals and other Americans opportunities for the sort of self-education he had enjoyed at an employer’s private library.

Similarly, women like Lillian Wald and Jane Addams, backed by wealthy donors, established “settlement houses” in cities with large numbers of immigrants. They offered not just health and social services, but also educational and cultural programs. The first floor of Addams’ Hull House contained a branch of the Chicago Public Library; the second floor housed an art gallery and studio, made possible by a gift from Chicago businessman Edward Butler.

Other organizations and programs like that continue to flourish, such as the El Paso Symphony’s Tocando Music Project, which teaches classical orchestral music to the children of Latin American immigrants and this year won a Civil Society Award from the Manhattan Institute.

Controversy Erupts

But these types of efforts also met with objections. In the 19th century, Catholic groups expressed fears that Protestant-run charities were more interested in converting immigrants than addressing their needs. Social critics, like 1920s novelist Anzia Yezierska, an immigrant herself, questioned the sincerity of settlement-house benefactors and “friendly visitors” who worked for social-service organizations. They were, she felt, too condescending — even exploitative — toward newcomers.

Using donations from members of their own groups, immigrants who shared these skeptical views developed a parallel set of organizations, such as parochial schools and mutual-aid societies, which sought to preserve old-country traditions while providing practical assistance, including interest-free loans and health benefits. They also supported communities and relatives in their countries of origin. Many of these efforts still exist or have taken on more modern forms, such as multicultural education programs. The total amount of money that immigrants send back home — known as “remittances” — far exceeds what the American government and foundations spend on international development assistance.

Research on Eugenics

But there was another side to philanthropy’s historical involvement with immigration, which involved efforts to curtail it. In the first decades of the 20th century, some foundations and wealthy individuals, many of whom were considered politically progressive at the time, supported education and research on eugenics, which purported to show “scientifically” that some ethnic groups were better suited to American life than others. This work, according to Daniel Okrent in The Guarded Gate, influenced the passage of the restrictive immigration law of 1924, which set low quotas for admitting Eastern Europeans and barred Asians from entering the United States.

In contrast, today’s progressive philanthropists are more likely to favor relaxing current restrictions, as well as addressing the uncertain legal status of the approximately 11 million immigrants who came to the United States without proper authorization or whose parents did. These philanthropists support a wide variety of advocacy and legal-aid groups, as well as programs providing services directly to people ineligible for government aid because of their immigration status.

On the other hand, some in the nonprofit world still oppose liberalized immigration policies, but they now rely on economics and demographics, not biology and genetics, to make their case. Today’s immigrants, they claim, especially those from less developed countries in Latin America, lack the skills required for a modern work force and depress wages for less-skilled jobs.

Not surprisingly, each group accuses the other of misusing data, having ulterior motives, or simply having racist views. And although the tradition of seeking votes by being for or against immigration is almost as old as American politics, the Trump administration has relied on it to an unusually significant degree from the start, including taking controversial steps such as travel bans and separating children from parents awaiting approval to come to the United States.

Nonetheless, public support of immigration has grown. In 2001, 62 percent of those polled by Gallup described immigration as a “good thing” for the United States compared with 77 percent this year. At the beginning of this century, 43 percent of the public thought immigration should decrease. Today, just 28 percent feel that way. Support for increasing immigration is higher this year than in the past 50 years and includes a sizable share of people identifying as Republicans.

Despite the rancor of the past few years, the United States seems certain to remain “a nation of immigrants” for a long time to come. While government actions will be necessary to sort out the legal issues, philanthropy has an important role to play in helping immigrants navigate through American social, economic, and civic life.