The Forgotten Panic Over 'Pauper Immigration'
An 1887 editorial reveals how Seattle's civic leaders—and the nation—framed foreign labor as a social and financial 'drain,' echoing the xenophobic rhetoric of modern political debates.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Great Britain has once more been caught in the act of dumping her paupers into the United States. This was common practice with the British government a few years ago, but the United States objected so strenuously that it was discontinued. It has, however, been resumed, and the people of the United States will again be compelled to make foreign nations understand that they do not desire pauper immigration. A pauper is no light expense to the people of the community in which he lives. He must be supported by the public, either in an almshouse or in some other manner. If he is for many years dependent upon public charity, his entire cost to the community is considerable. It is evidently much cheaper to pay his passage to some foreign country, give him five dollars and send him off. This is what England has been doing, and her people express surprise that the Americans should object to receiving their almshouse immigrants. Generally, a man or woman who is a pauper in one country will be a pauper in another. The English government has no more right to force its public charges upon the people of the United States than it would have to send its convicted criminals to America. The people of this country are willing to care for their own paupers, but they object to becoming responsible for those of Great Britain as well.
“The English government has no more right to force its public charges upon the people of the United States than it would have to send its convicted criminals to America.”
This 1887 editorial illustrates a recurring American preoccupation with the 'cost' of the vulnerable, framing immigration through the lens of municipal fiscal burden. Today's debates over public charge rules and the housing of asylum seekers mirror this century-old anxiety, where social safety nets are often weaponized against new arrivals.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.