American interests in immigrant labor forces and human resources were explicitly significant as for the experiences of immigration from the Latin American countries. It was the sign of protest against the colonized system of their national governments that demonstrated lack of care about economic, social, cultural orientation of their peoples. To a great degree, the results of political and economic immigration towards the U.S. caused instability within the U.S. labor market in terms of inequality in distributing the workspaces amongst Native Americans and immigrants. Portes & Stepick (1997) highlight it with the example: the foreign policy of the federal government was aimed at attracting cheap labor force like Puerto Ricans who worked hard on sugar plantations, suffered from sun heat and hunger, and were banned even from speaking their native Spanish language at schools. The new documentary “The Harvest of Empire” (2011) provides President Truman’s commentary on such cases: after provocative highlights that the way the U.S. dealt with Puerto Ricans was the sign of cruelty, he replied accordingly that it was not cruelty, but indifference and lack of care. In relation to modernity, this problem becomes even more acute than it sounded in the 1980s.

Critics of immigration law package in the U.S. could hardly ever expect how modernity relates to prehistory of Latin American immigration. American government was interested in development of its national economy that could be achievable only when the labor force of hardworking type would contribute to development the economic initiatives. It was in the period of 1890-1899 when “the United States admitted 31,480 immigrants from the “West Indies” (Duany 35). However, that could not suffice as the welcoming manner the federal government was performing could be treated as the sign of political correctness and eagerness to use benefits of immigrant labor resources as the well-known acts of good will. In the future perspectives, this would come out into the global mass market trade as an HR competition that can be explicable only in the context of radical segregation by educational level, not by the country of origin.

By the way, political interests of the U.S. started to be traceable more since the Cuban immigration to the U.S. started. Cuban exodus (the first wave of immigration) was the sign of pre-revolutionary impact on understanding the democracy. It was called the “golden exiles” that came true due to the military pressing of Batista’s dictatorships. Later, the Cuban leader Fidel Castro announced permit to leave the island to commemorate release from totalitarian rule in the scope of the rising social revolution and his victory. The sign of “freedom flights” between Cuba and the U.S. was a gesture of political correctness and welcoming manners. However, it did not help America to have a greater political impact on revolutionary processes on the Cuban land. Starting from October 1962, many craft and makeshift vessel makers left Cuba for the U.S. to cooperate in creating new manufacturing ideas in the technical field. Of course, the United States was interested in developing cooperative relations with the neighboring country, which they regarded to be the major player within the context of the Caribbean Gulf. Castro, however, in his turn, understood very well, that the U.S. political and economic interests concerning his country had excessive limits. The American intention to seed democratic values all across the globe started with Cuba. It then proceeded up to the third wave of immigration, until the so called Mariel Exodus that happened to be real in 1980, when the ship with immigrants from Cuba approached the Mariel Gulf to prove their expectations of the land of the endless opportunities. Castro banned their visit to the U.S., recognizing them to be homosexuals and psycho people who had nothing left but leave their homeland for the better life abroad.

The true intention of the American empirical ambitions in the 20th century was to set up control in the neighboring countries, promoting the culture of diversity. It was the sign of protest against common American peacemakers who did nothing but regulated the arising conflicts between native residents and immigrants. They were too different, and people varied not only by race or ethnicity, but also by the worldview that happened to be radically contrastive to traditionally common in the U.S. Similarly, the 19-20th century Dominican and Puerto Rican exodus was marked by difficulties of understanding between people of different origins and types of thinking.

It could be recognized as a fact that imperialism of the U.S. was marked by their expansive interests in different areas, and by now it came out as global democracy initiatives, the mask to hide guilt and untrue compassion to the poor and oppressed countries in distant areas of the world. If in the 20th century in Nicaragua, “these processes were expedited by control of the state by the emerging coffee oligarchy”(Hamilton and Stolz 85) in relevance to high consumption of coffee, nowadays the story repeats itself with the oil benefits to control gas and oil shells by America in Iraq, suppressing the interests of Russia as the leading oil and gas exporter. It was not that recent that the U.S. was “importing seven and a half million Africans to work as slaves in Europe and its colonies from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries) or contracted (as in contracting Eastern European peasants to work in U.S. manufacturing industries in the nineteenth century)” (Hamilton and Stolz 76). Nowadays, slavery is abolished, but still many people feel oppressed by American consumerism and their economic interest all across the globe. The situation is different from that in the 20th century only by the mask of extra care about democracy and opportunities in mass trade and labor market. However, the similarity is that the U.S. is still interested in promoting the culture of ignorance towards the problems of immigrants.