In his drama "An Inspector Calls" Priestley shows the moral failure of a family, whose prejudices and contradictions are an expression of the situation of the whole community. So the play reflects Priestley’s social criticism. Priestley describes the upper class and their power over others and their discrimination against most people in society. With his play he makes an appeal to the conscience of each man. The Birlings portray the upper class. They live in a world of privileges and status symbols. Mr and Mrs Birling take it for granted that they have justice and moral standards on their side. The inspector tries to show them that they are wrong. But they think this is an offence against manners and decency. Arthur and Sibyl Birling judge people who live in poverty. In some way the inspector is the advocate of those people. But the Birlings do not want to get involved this world of poverty and misery. They are of the opinion that people like Eva Smith have to go to where they came from. For Sibyl Birling charity is only an instrument of power. She demonstrates moral superiority by differentiating between deserving and undeserving cases. The rich families like the Birlings or the Crofts do not see that they are responsible for the people who live in poverty. Arthur Birling thinks he is only responsible for himself, his family and for the success of his company. His motto is: Every man for himself. Only Sheila and Eric Birling can feel and behave in a human way. Sheila has much sympathy with poor people but she also shows no consideration in some situations (for example in the shop). Eric shows at the beginning of the play that he has a feeling of social justice: He contradicts his father, when Mr Birling denies being guilty of Eva Smith´s stroke of fate. Sheila and Eric appreciate the inspector’s criticism and regret their behaviour whereas their parents do not do this at all.

For Priestley the moral basis of human relations is truthfulness about oneself and for others, which results in social responsibility and solidarity in the end. Only some members of the family understand this message. The external harmonious cooperation in the beginning marks the end self-deception. The family is confronted with a heap of fragments of destroyed relationships.
Priestley wants to put the sociocritical topic of his play in a historical context. He says about his play it is an attempt " to dramatize the history of the last thirty years or so, making everything cast a long shadow". So he does not only want to draw a picture of society before World War I, but he wants to prolong the lines of development to the present. He invites people of his time to compare and to reflect. Priestley wants the public to recognize in which way society is ill and what everyone can do for a better future.
The term community is a keyword in Priestley’s visions of a better world. As a result of property and power oppression and a split of community arise. A community where people can develop and show solidarity with others is not available. For Mr Birling such a community is unthinkable. His motto is "that a man has to mind his own business and look after himself....". But the inspector admonishes: "We don’t live alone. We are members of one body."
Our society also works on this principle. I do not think the comparison that a society is one body and we all are members of this body is the same as communism. It only describes that everyone has to care for others and that everyone has certain obligations. Society cannot exist, if some people dissociate themselves from others or if some people are dissociated.

Menenius Agrippa (494 BC) gives a good example of the difficulties and problems of society: He compares society with a human body. His story is as follows: The individual parts of a body are outraged because they think that they work so hard whereas the stomach does nothing. He is only a beneficiary. So they stop working and go on strike. But in consequence the body is totally exhausted. Then they realize that the stomach has an important job to do and is not only lazy. He is responsible for the feeding.

In the same way community must work. All people ought to realize that everyone has a duty and that privileges of a minority must not be more important than the welfare of a big majority. Solidarity and responsibility for each individual are very essential factors nowadays.

So the Puerto Ricans are not immigrants but they are often regarded as immigrants because of being Hispanics and speaking Spanish as their first language.

The song is sung by Puerto Rican girls and deals with the differences between America and Puerto Rico and with the differences between the white immigrants and the Puerto Ricans.

Structure:

There are 8 verses and every verse has 4 lines. The first, third, fifth and seventh verse is sung by all girls except one, named Rosalia. The other verses are sung by Rosalia and a girl named Anita.

Rosalia is the only girl who wants back to San Juan. She sings she likes the city of San Juan with the flowers in full bloom. She will drive a Buick (car) with her cousins through S.J. And she is sure that everyone will be happy when she is coming back. I think she wants back to Puerto Rico because she doesn’t feel really accepted in America. On the other hand there is Anita who is glad to be in America and she can’t understand Rosalia. When Rosalia lists the positive things of S.J. Anita always shows her the negative side; for instance line 7/8, verse 4 ,6,8.

The verses where all sing are different to the Rosalia/Anita verses. The All-verses always end with the word America.

In the other verses Rosalia begins by describing the intentions she has. But Anita always makes spiteful comments about this.

The All-Verses:

I think these girls like to be in America, although they see the differences between real immigrants and themselves, otherwise they would want to go back to S.J. But they know they have a better situation in America than in Puerto Rico.

In a way they compare the well-known version of the American Dream with the reality of their own experiences. They often criticize the USA and use irony in their part of the song. For instance, when they sing that wire-spoke wheels are a very big deal they are being ironical, because this isn’t really important to them. Or there is another example in verse 7. They sing about comfort in America and give as an example the knobs in the door or wall-to-wall floors. In my opinion these three lines mean that they don’t have this comfort, only the white immigrants, who are welcome.

The differences between the immigrants and them you see in verse 5. The desirable immigrants are welcomed with many hellos to live their American dream, but nobody notices the Puerto Ricans.

There is a second version of the song. And I think there you can see the differences, too.

For example: Buying on credit is so nice, but one look at us and they charge twice You see they are not treated equally.

In the other verse: Everything is growing and getting better all the time (lots of new housing with more space), but not for the Puerto Ricans (doors slamming in our face). And they won’t get a terraced apartment because of their accent. The advice is to get rid of it. This means you must adapt yourself to the people who are really accepted by Americans. So you can’t be what you are and you need to change.

In my opinion the message of this song is that you should not believe in the tales of the promised land where everything is possible without doing anything, where all are welcomed and have equal rights. The girls want the listener to face the darker sides of America, which belong to the positive aspects as well.

The 19th and 20th century were centuries of immigration. Millions of people decided to leave their countries and began a new life in a strange world. In recent years millions of legal and illegal immigrants have arrived in the United States, representing the largest influx in history. The first immigrants came from England, Ireland, Germany and the Scandinavian countries. They had different reasons for emigrating: religious or political persecution, war, famines or unemployment. They searched for a better life and, attracted by reports of great economic opportunities and religious and political freedom, they came to the United States in an increasing number. Later there was a flood of immigrants from Austria, Hungary, Italy and Russia. Approximately 25 millions arrived between 1866 and 1915. Many of them settled in New York City, where the population increased from 200,000 inhabitants in 1830 to 515,000 in 1850. By 1860 one million people lived in New York. Today, more than half of the city’s population are immigrants and their American born children. The opinions about the flood of immigrants are very different. Many times Americans wanted to close the gates to the new world and to keep out unwanted foreigners. The unwanted immigrants were often people from Asia, East Europe, criminals and poor people. The Americans complained that these people preserved their own religion and language and that they did not integrate themselves in society. The rich Americans did not want to pay for the poor, who filled the almshouses in America. They were even called garbage by some radical Americans such as Thomas Bailey Aldrich or Madison Grant, who wrote the book "The Passing of the Great Race". With the U.S. entry into World War I, immigration declined dramatically and also remained low in the 1930s. The number of new arrivals began to increase again during the 1940s, when many Jews tried to come to the USA because of religious persecution. Left: Judge magazine (22 March 1890): European garbage ships unload their human cargo on Liberty Island. Miss Liberty to Treasury Secretary William Windon: "If you´re going to turn this island into a garbage dump, I´m going back to France."

Immigration from Cuba

When Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, 200,000 anti-Castro Cubans immigrated to the United States. The immigrants were often middle-upper class citizens who found Castro’s plans threatening to their way of life. So many of them were from wealthy families and well-educated. The U.S government granted asylum to those Cubans and offered help to find homes and to make job contacts.
Later relatives of the first Cuban immigrants or poor Cubans, looking for work, followed. But in October 1962 commercial air-flights from Cuba to the United States were suspended. Nevertheless 50,000 came to the USA between 1962 and 1965. Many of these people sailed from Cuba in small boats but some of them were apprehended by the Cuban navy, because this was illegal.
In 1965 the USA and Cuba agreed to set up an airlift between Cuba and Miami. This brought 250,000 Cubans to America between 1966 and 1973.
Another major influx of Cuban immigrants was the arrival of the Marielitos in 1980. The Marielitos were about 125,000 people whom the Cuban government wanted out of Cuba. Some of them were unskilled workers, criminals and mentally ill people. The U.S government allowed the Marielitos to enter, but not knowing that some of them were criminals. They were placed in U.S prisons, but many were rehabilitated and released and only few had to return to Cuba.
Until 1994 the United States welcomed Cuban immigrants as victims of an oppressive regime but then, after another big influx, where thousands of Cubans sailed on small boats and rafts to escape poverty in Cuba, President Clinton announced the United States would not accept any more refugees. Many Cubans were stopped by U.S. ships and were taken to the U.S. naval base in Guatanamo Bay on Cuba’s coast.

Conclusion

I think Cuba is a good example to show that America partly is a land of refuge. But they do not allow all people to come to America. In a way they select people and want to have the better part of the refugees. The USA is known as a " nation of immigrants " but also other countries have comparably large immigrant populations. For instance, more than 17 percent of the Canadian population and more than 21 percent of the Australian population are foreign born, compared to about 11 percent of the U.S. population. Nevertheless, America is the land with most immigrants and it is still a land with many opportunities for all people.

When you hear the first two stanzas it seems that the son would like to change his life or something in his life. The father does not want his son to do this, because he thinks it is a mistake. He is very convinced of himself because he remembers his own youth ("I was once like you are now") and thinks he knows his son´s situation. Instead he wants him to relax, calm down and think about his decisions. He also gives him some suggestions such as to settle down, find a girl and marry. He tries to explain his own experiences in life to him although the son does not like to hear this. This advice is very important for him: Look before you leap! It means, not to rush into ill-considered new situations and problems, because in the long run one might recognize that the previous considerations were not so good. The father is convinced that his son is too young, has no life experience and as a consequence should listen and live the way the father suggests. He is the older man who knows what the good and right way is. So he does not support his son’s ideas at all.

When you hear the son’s opinion, you get the feeling that it cannot be the first conflict between them ("it´s always been the same old story") and that the relationship was always very difficult and full of problems. I think their main problem is that they cannot talk with each other. The father has his own opinion, which he would never change and the son sounds a little bit desperate. It seems senseless to argue with his father about his ideas, because the son found the same reaction more than once: the father would not listen and turned away. Consequently they can’t find a solution.

Therefore, as a matter of fact, the son does not even try to convince him that his ideas are good. But in the end you get the feeling that this time the son is absolutely determined to go away, to live his own life and not to listen and to obey. It is the right time for him because he was "ordered to listen" his whole life.

In the next stanza the father sings almost the same, which means he only has the same arguments. I think, Cat Steven did this to show that the father has and accepts only one opinion (he is the only one who knows), he wants no change. He uses himself as a good example ("Look at me, I am old but I am happy").

In the last stanza the son confirms his ideas for the future. He sees a way out of this situation: He has to go away. He admits he cried a lot of times, because he knows a lot of things but is not allowed to say or do these (for example make own decisions). Having this feeling is very hard but it is much harder to ignore it. So he has to go.

Only if the others were right and he knew that, he would agree and live the way the father wants him to. The problem is that the others always know and he does not. So he would like to show: Look, I would like to know and I know and not only you! So he wants to prove this: He wants to go away to make his own experiences.