Posted on 03/22/2013 2:48:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In 2008, Mark Krikorian published an important new book arguing against permissive immigration. The book's central idea: what has changed since Ellis Island days is not the immigrants; it's the society they are immigrating to.
In 1913, a Sicilian who migrated to New York City to do manual labor would discover a society willing to pay a high wage for his effort.
In 2013 … not so. Yesterday's New York Times reports on a new study confirming Krikorian's insight.
People of Mexican descent in New York City are far more likely to be living in poor or near-poor households than other Latinos, blacks, whites or Asians,according to a study to be released on Thursday.
Nearly two-thirds of the city’s Mexican residents, including immigrants and the native-born, are living in low-income households, compared with 55 percent of all Latinos; 42 percent of blacks and Asians; and 25 percent of whites, said the report by the Community Service Society, a research and advocacy group in New York City that focuses on poverty......
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
I concur, that's been the case for eons, going back to, well, Lincoln .... It was the Democrats who reformed immigration and stopped the wage-breakers' game in 1925, and LBJ who engineered the party's volte-face in 1953/4, which was motivated by LBJ's knowledge that Mexicans tend to vote Left and are generationally tenacious in their voting patterns. Even on a showing that the Democrat Party militates against their many social interests, they vote for the Left Party as the party of subsidies and price/rent control, largely because great-grandfathers Triunfador and Sotero did so.
Going back before Lincoln. The necessity of populating a continent sideled into the desire for cheap labor and immigrant votes. That was under way whatever Lincoln did or didn't do.
It was the Democrats who reformed immigration and stopped the wage-breakers' game in 1925
Not so much. Republicans controlled Congress. The sponsors of the bill were Republicans. A Republican president signed it. Republicans took the flak for it in later years. There weren't many dissenters, though (mostly Democrats), so you could say it was bipartisan.
There was a case for reforming the bill to take out the more prejudicial aspects. That had already largely been done by the 1960s. But the Democrats -- Kennedy and Johnson -- chose a radical overhaul, rather than continue with gradual, piecemeal reform, and they had all kinds of offensive quotes from the act's supporters back in the 1920s to push their case through.
As it was, though, they got enough support from Republicans. That was also a bipartisan measure. The Immigration and Naturalization Act was the dark obverse of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. Republicans were more supportive of the latter than Democrats because they had little presence in the South. For the same reason, though, they were also more supportive of the former.
Only 21 comments in two days.
During the 2005 Bush-McCain Amnesty, an article like this would generate 21 comments in 21 minutes.
That's a terrible omen.
The Conservative grass roots are either exhausted, utterly demoralized, or indifferent to Amnesty 2013.
I don't know how we stop this legislation without some form of national leadership.
Only NewsBusters, Ann Coulter, and a few minor Conservative columnists are making a sincere effort to block it.
Perhaps Rush Limbaugh is helping, but I don't get a chance to listen because of work.
Michele Malkin was probably the most powerful and relentless Conservative voice in opposition to Amnesty 2005.
In 2013, her voice is rarely heard on the issue.
To my knowledge there are no Republican congressmen who have taken an articulate leadership position against Amnesty 2013.
Within three weeks, Harry Reid is going to dump Amnesty 2013 on Congress.
The MSM, the Democrats, and the RINO’s will give it the legislative Bum's Rush.
Within three weeks, American Conservatives will face political extinction.
And we are standing around, just watching it happen.
“The sponsors of the bill were Republicans.”
I stand corrected ...... The original 1921 Emergency Quota Act legislation had a Republican sponsor, a single Democrat objector in the Senate (from Mississippi, note), and Jewish policy objects — or so Wiki likes to tell us.
(Getting harder and harder to quote Wiki with a straight face.)
A Democratic President signed the interim 1917 Immigration Act; Pubbies its successors.
Rundown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act
We aim to please. We don’t always lift the toiler seat, but we aim ;)
Because many ‘conservatives’ on the internet ....aren’t.
What they apparently forgot was their basic arithmetic. For example, in 100 years, about 3 million Poles showed up for work in the US; about 5 million Italians; coupla million Eastern Jews, maybe a million Swedes, and 1/2 a million Norwegians. Worked out pretty good.
However, since 1965, 35 million legal Mexicans have shown up, plus about another ??? 20 million illegals??? (I know the gov says "11 million, but that's just in LA County). Along with other Latinos, they will make up 1/3 of our total population very soon! Imagine that! I mean ¡Imáginese eso! Funny, but I never wondered how to say that in Norwegian.
What the cheap labor boys forgot is the cost of 100 million people in 50 years vs. the cost of 10 million multi-cultural Europeans over 125 years, who arrived without any mandatory financial safety net.
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.