Replies

Proponents of unending mass immigration always like to point out the success of assimilating the last great wave, yet they always leave out critical differences between that era and this one. Some include the modern existence of welfare, multiculturalism, and racial preferences.

But perhaps the biggest difference of all was that the last great wave was cut off by Congresssional action. In the early 1920s legislation was passed, and one of the results was that immigration levels fell from about 900,000 per year to about 200,000 for over the next 40 yrs. We went from mass immigration to modest immigration. Do you really doubt that reduction played an important part in assimilating all those Irish, Italians, and Germans? Of course it did.

So to follow the logic of 'past mass immigration turned out ok, so current mass immigration will to' we must truly follow the example of the past. We should reduce immigration levels. We should limit family reunification to spouses (i.e. female wives of male residents and male husbands of female residents) and minor dependent children, and possibly parents.

Does anyone doubt that would help assimilate all the Hispanic and Asian immigrants who have come in the last 30 yrs?

But you're right about Mexico. With their natural resources and abundant labor supply it is an indictment of that country's leaders that they are still mired in third world status.

Even with land for homesteading, an abundance of newly created factory jobs, a lot of land still in agriculture, cheap health care and schools --- there were big problems with those immigrants.

Labor unions got their big start with the immigrants, there was violence and bloodshed in the street. People aren't learning their history anymore and don't even know about the riots of the late 1800s.