Not just yet.
Posted on 06/05/2005 8:19:23 AM PDT by austinite
The United States Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act or the Johnson-Reed Act, limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of person from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890 according to the census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were prohibited from immigrating entirely. It set no limits on immigration from Latin America.
As an example of its effect, in the ten years following 1900 about 200,000 Italians immigrated every year. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, only 4,000 per year were allowed. At the same time, the annual quota for Germany was over 57,000. 86% of the 165,000 permitted entries were from the British Isles, France, Germany, and other Northern European countries.
The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
What you're saying here isn't clear to me. Are you saying that if Americans had larger families then illegal aliens would actually take that into consideration before deciding to come here?
Ask the folks in the Netherlands about unlimited immigration. Thier plate is full.
"blathering from the bench in favor of mandatory sterilization of hillbillies in the South, saying: "Three generations of idiots are enough."
Boy, do you ever have that wrong.
If we're all to be judged for what other people are saying a this moment, you'll have to answer for Michael Moore and Ward Churchill.
The 1924 immigration act was designed to restrict immigration to the United States of eastern European Jews, Polish Catholics and Italian Catholics every bit as much as Prohibition was aimed at Catholics.
First of all, it would be unfair to say "Prohibition was aimed at Catholics." It might look that way to many Catholics and it was a bad, unworkable law, but it's reductionist to blame the law on animus against some group. It was based on an idea about citizenship and sobriety.
That idea was flawed, but we ought to come up with better arguments than those liberals who argue that everything that they disapprove of is a expression of racism. Just as one can oppose affirmative action or favor limits on immigration without being a racist today, one could favor prohibition for idealistic or moralistic reasons, not because one wanted to stick it to another group.
Secondly, I think you want to look at the 1960s. Efforts had been made in the 1940s and 1950s to adapt the immigration laws and change or relax the quotas, and they had largely been successful. What you got in the 1960s was people talking about "racism" and the insult of these laws to their own ethnic group.
So the system was scrapped and a new one instituted which had serious flaws. There was a certain amount of demagoguery and moral bullying involved. Rather than ask how can we get a better immigration system for America, Congress blindly acted out of indignation and blundered into some of the problems we face today.
I had relatives who couldn't come over here because of the 1924 quotas. That's unfortunate. But independent of race or ethnicity, one can make the argument that countries can't endure constant mass immigration, but need to take a break from it to assimilate the people who are already here, and give them a chance to get on the ladder.
If you want to keep people like me out of this country, you had better expell those that are already here. That is my point.
One of the ways to citizenship for illegal aliens has always been military service.
Not in the least. Read above about the superiority of Nordic immigrants and get your answer.
You'll have to provide a cite for a claim this extraordinary. Deporting a U.S. citizen for that reason would have been flagrantly unconstitutional.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1403814/posts
I am not too good at format but you can review this.
A machinist i knew at Magma Mine in Arizona was one who was tossed out of the country from California and reentered at Naco.
What I am saying is that our immigration policy has been mired in racism. The current argument is less over jobs than "culture" which is a current PC reference to race IMO.
My own Great Grandfather walked across at Naco but was not deported as underground miners were scarce and his employers liked the work he did. He died in the early 1930's.
The town I grew up in, Superior, Arizona, was almost totally immigrant or dust bowl refugees. Not just from Mexico, but from East Europe, Lebanon, and China. To this day, if you ask about the town when the mines were open, people will be very negative and many will say the work there was only fit for poor white trash and Mexicans. That is just the way thing are.
People have always looked the other way at illegals. Haven't you noticed the reason people are screaming about it now, mainly, are the sheer numbers? People are seeing hospitals, schools, and property taxes being overwhelmed, knowing, there's no end to the taxation in sight.
They are also seeing another "entitlement" based group gearing up for special treatment. That's not how this country was built. It's how it will be torn down, though.
Good idea, it sound to me like your an idiot. Are all Hispanics idiots like you or is it just you? Probably not, it must be just you, most Hispanics I know are in the country legally and are fairly intelligent. Maybe we'll just kick you out for being a moron.
Anybody here legally can stay, regardless of race.
When you play the race card you better back it up with fact buster, no feelings. That is what they do on the DU message boards. Where you belong by the way.
Speak for yourself.
amen
add this one to your collection
I was dipstick.
Good.
Well, it sure kept out those pesky JOOOZ from 1933-1945.
Not just yet.
This isn't your forum. I'll get off it when I feel like it.
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.