There Are Deep Ties Between Nativism and Anti-Semitism Article Analysis

Anti-Semitism is described as prejudice towards or discrimination against those of Jewish descent. This was put on display in October of 2018, with an attack which can be described as an act of pure hate. This attack is the center of gravity for the article, “There Are Deep Ties Between Nativism and Anti-Semitism”, written by Jaclyn Granick and Britt Tevis. Although this event is most prominent, this is not the only piece of evidence Granick and Tevis use to support their claim. Their thesis states, “Anti-Semitism, anti-nativism, and anti-immigrant sentiments have long been inextricably intertwined [in American history].” Although anti-Semitic and Nativism exists in the United States, the authors do not effectively convince the reader of its systematic existence today in “There Are Deep Ties Between Nativism and Anti-Semitism”, written by Jaclyn Granick and Britt Tevis. 

Although the authors provide evidence that alludes to an anti-Immigrant system in the 20th century, they fail to clearly link it to anti-Semitic practices. This can be seen in the U.S. Public Health Departments immigration standards in the 1900s. They describe, “favus, a scalp disease, which was commonly associated with eastern European Jews, and fears of typhus were used to justify diplomat’s exclusionary, anti-Semitic stance after World War 1”. Favus is an infectious disease, it would disqualify anyone during that time frame. Infectious disease was disqualifying criteria regardless of race. Therefore, anyone with infectious disease would be turned away. This was not exclusive to any given race, religion, or ethnicity. Granick and Tevis attempt to link these policies again when describing the modern-day Department of Homeland Security’s immigration policy. Stating, “…immigration officers excluded Jews by determining that they were ‘likely lead to become public charges’ it ruled that the department of homeland security recently announced would reinstate…” In fact, this policy was widely used to exclude many populations. Italians, Irish, Indians, and Asians. This is not to say that there were no anti-Semitic policies. The authors fail to make a true distinction between anti-Immigrant and anti-Semitic policies; they appear to apply to all groups not just one. 

In a similar manner, the authors make a false comparison; they fail to consider lurking variables. They describe the Red Cross’ connection to the U.S. Government, “but it [Red Cross] was guided by American Christian thinking and closely linked with the U.S. state power. By default, the Red Cross tended to serve Christians and only sporadically cooperated with Jewish organizations or made efforts to reach out to Jewish war victims.” Although this may be a form of indirect discrimination, the authors claim does not align. Their thesis deals with direct anti-Semitism, while the Red Cross did not take part in that. When the author uses the phrase, “by default” it implies that there was no intention behind the action. The Jewish population in the United States has always been under 5%, therefore they would be statistically underserved. Not because of prejudice but because of demographics. Next, the authors cite a failed immigration attempt, “the Holocaust did little to change anti-immigrant or anti-Jewish sentiments in the United States. In 1939 the United States…” Without context, this seems to suggest that the United States intentionally sent back Jewish refugees to die in the holocaust. The contextual issue is that very little was known in the United States about the holocaust in 1939. It did not become public knowledge until after the second world war. Making their claim of anti-Semitism somewhat invalid. Again, this practice is anti-Immigrant not anti-Semitic.

The authors have a subtle political bias in the writing of this article. Bias is a major factor when it comes to credibility. The validity of an entire piece of writing can come into question when bias is found. It can be seen when they cite modern day policy, “HIAS lawyers could be found at airports assisting immigrants after President Trump enacted the ‘Muslim Ban’”. The use of the term, “Muslim Ban” was popularized by critics of the former president and is not an official term for the named policy. Executive order 13769 or “Travel Ban” was an extremely politically charged issue. There is much debate today on its validity and purpose. This policy is still in contention today, taking a stance on a contentious policy seems like clear political bias. Next, they attempt to connect the “Travel Ban” with a synagogue shooting. Attributing the same “Sentiment” to both acts. This is a misrepresentation, there is a clear difference between contentious political policy and acts of domestic terrorism. That fact alone is enough to establish a clear bias; implying that the motivation behind both actions were the same. 

The article, “There Are Deep Ties Between Nativism and Anti-Semitism”, written by Jaclyn Granick and Britt Tevis makes a strong claim. Their thesis is as follows, “Anti-Semitism, anti-nativism, and anti-immigrant sentiments have long been inextricably intertwined [in American history].” Although anti-Semitic and associated hatred exists in the United States, the authors do not effectively convince the reader of its connection in “There Are Deep Ties Between Nativism and Anti-Semitism”, written by Jaclyn Granick and Britt Tevis. They make three key mistakes. They fail to link evidence to their claim, they compare their evidence incorrectly, and show a political bias. These three factors hold back their ability to convince the reader. Anti-Semitism and the associated prejudice are very much real, there is no question. They have very real effects on society. It is up to the people who make up the United States to make a change. A change that is so desperately needed in the world today.