Not true. Annual intake was about 195,000 a year compared to 1.1 million annually now. We have just had three of the four highest decades of legal immigration in our history.
Average 195,000 per year from 1921-1970
Posted on 11/04/2016 6:10:00 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Your 3 Members of Congress Street Address City, State Zip
Dear Your 3 Members of Congress,
More than 15 million Americans are out of work and this number is growing quickly. However, the United States continues to admit more than 1 million legal immigrants each year. Why do you and your colleagues in Congress continue to allow this to happen? Do you not realize that these ludicrously high numbers are not representative of our nation's proud immigration tradition?
For the first 200 years of its existence, the United States admitted about 250,000 immigrants each year. From 1946 to 1970 this number was about 255,000. However, since 1990, this number has skyrocketed to more than 1 million each year! America's current immigration numbers clearly are not in line with America's immigration tradition. Indeed, Congress' refusal to reduce the number of immigrants allowed to legally work and reside in the United States is taking a devastating toll on America's unemployed and underemployed.
I implore you to look at the numbers. You will find that America is indeed taking in far too many immigrants than it can handle. You and your friends and colleagues in Congress can act to reduce these numbers so that America's unemployed and underemployed have a decent chance of finding a job.
There was none for 40 years-1920-1965. I say deport everyone who doesn’t belong here and replace them with Europeans fed up with THEIR immigration policies. Funny thing is if Trump leads on the issue Europe will follow.
Actually, I think we should stop all immigration from third world countries and accept only those with useful skills. We have too many issues that need resolution and most of the immigrants add to the problems rather than supplying a need or serving a useful function. Also, “diversity” is diluting our society for no useful end.
THERE”S an extremist position if I’ve ever heard one! /SARC
I have literally tried calling, faxing, emailing, texting them x 30 years with ZERO results. I'll address their tin ears this Tuesday.
We have a congress in name only. They are a bunch of self aggrandizing do-nothings who could care less about what we think or want.
Post of the day !
Immigration levels should be set to ZERO until we get sorted out who belongs here and who doesn’t.
Tell Congress to put a MORATORIUM on immigration fro 4 years to give us time to evaluate the problem and decide what we want to do in the future that will be best for AMERICA.
Not true. Annual intake was about 195,000 a year compared to 1.1 million annually now. We have just had three of the four highest decades of legal immigration in our history.
Average 195,000 per year from 1921-1970
I’ll tell them on Tuesday.
How about ZERO. No immigration for at least two generations !
This is what Australia does. They have a point system that assigns higher values to certain skills (like medical/nursing). And, you get more points if you are willing to settle in outlying areas.
They also have an "investment visa", for retirees can invest in Australian companies (you need a couple of million). Or, you can start a business with a minimum payroll.
If the 1965 Hart-Cellar bill had never been passed, then mass immigration wouldn’t have resumed. Remember, Ted Kennedy and other supports of that bill made a series of false promises to get it passed, chief among them that the overall levels of immigration would not be significantly changed. Matters were worsened in 1990 when Bush signed another Ted Kennedy immigration expansion bill into law. Among the bad parts of that bill were the creation of the Diversity Visa Lottery, which insanely doles out 50,000 visas a year to underrepresented nations.
There was a chance to reverse the damage of those two bills and enact a significant reduction in legal immigration in the mid-90s after the Jordan Commission (chaired by liberal Democrat congresswoman Barbara Jordan)announced it’s very reasonable findings. Presdident Clinton expressed early support for the findings (he later backtracked after professional ethnic grievance groups started whining). A bill was crafted (Smith-Simpson) to enact these findings. It looked like the bill would pass, and force Clinton into an uncomfortable position of either vetoing a popular bill or signing it and upsetting the grievance groups. With reelection approaching, and with the white vote still overwhelmingly dominant, and with bipartisan support for the bill (the Democratic party not yet unanimous in support of unending and ever-increasing mass immigration) I think he would have eventually signed it.
Had that happened, chain migration would likely have ended with the elimination of the adult sibling category. The Diversity Lottery visas would have been abolished. Immigration levels would still have been too high at between 500,000 and 600,000 per year, but it would have been an improvement.
But the bill never passed. A group of immigration leftists on the GOP side sabotaged it, mainly because they didn’t like how it would reduce the amount of Democrat-importing legal immigration. Some of the villains included Senator Abraham from Michigan, Rep Dick Armey from Texas, Rep Sam Brownback from Kansas, and a staffer named Paul Ryan. Newt Gingrich can probably be included on that list too since he apparently made no attempt to stop those traitors and save the original bill.
Had Smith-Simpson become law, there would have been fewer future Democrats imported over the next decade, which means Paul Ryan would have had a better chance of becoming Vice President in 2012. That Ryan helped ensure his own defeat with his actions as a staffer would be funny if the consequences for the nation weren’t so bad.
Smith-Simpson was the last time conservative comprehensive immigration reform was truly before Congress. After 9-11 W could have, and should have, pursued a reduction in immigration, but of course he was totally worthless on the issue.
Even today the desire for reducing legal immigration is still a mainstream American view, often still enjoying plurality or majority status, and always polling much higher than preference for increasing immigration. Yet politicians who hold the extreme view of massively increasing legal immigration have largely paid no price for holding a view opposed by the vast majority of Americans. Part of this is due to the fact that most of these mass immigration supporting politicians don’t advertise their views, and of course the media aids and abets them by not calling them out on it. I never heard any supporter of the Gang of Eight, or it’s W-era predecessors talk or brag about how the bills would have massively increased legal immigration. The worthless media of course gave that aspect of the bill no coverage. The bill was sold based on its popular parts, like punitive measures and a long path to citizenship for illegal aliens, plus (bogus) promises of enhanced enforcement, while the unpopular parts of the bill like the lack of teeth behind the punitive and enforcement measures, and the massive increase in legal immigration, were left out of the discussion. So basically they lie by omission, and their media allies let them get away with it. One exception may be that Hillary actually did openly call for an insane 500% increase in Syrian refugees, but she hasn’t exactly defended that view when called out on it by Trump, as instead she just deflects and says she supports screening out any of the dangerous ones.
Another reason why mass immigration supporting politicians have not suffered for their out-of-the-mainstream positions is that while the Democrats no longer have any reasonable voices on immigration, the GOP has been fatally divided on the issue, with the base wanting less immigration while the Bush-Ryan type of leaders want more, resulting in no clear choice and distinction to the public. That has finally changed some this year with Trump. He has said he’s support legislation to reduce legal immigration, and his website immigration plan calls for reducing immigration levels to more moderate, historical levels. And while I give him credit for this, and acknowledge that immigration has been a big part of his campaign, I still don’t think he has been effective in talking about how excessive legal immigration levels are, and the need to reduce them. He’s good on illegal immigration, but talk about mass legal immigration requires a deeper, more wonkish grasp of the issue which Trump has shown signs of grasping in some speeches, but not in the debates or at rallies.
Moratorium for 10 years. Period. Search “immigration gum balls” to see why.
The obamaic criminal Congress.
The welfare state needs a continuous supply of a next generation. For the last 40yrs, feminists found it more important to emulate men which has resulted in a birth rate catastrophe.
So unwanted refugees will fill the margin. And horror will follow.
....And those “unwanted” refugees would face an armed American population.
Long term, gun owners are not reproducing as fast as the the invading force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.