Immigration Act of 1924

U.S. Congress ^ | 1924 | US Congress

[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 It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act.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.

[BlackElk]

Perhaps I should clarify and say that I regard Olive Wendell Holmes, Jr., as, perhaps, the single most reprehensible excuse for a human being ever to serve on SCOTUS (despite stiff competition from Hugo Black, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, William O. Douglas, and many others). The bullet that wounded him in the War Between the States, unfortunately, did not finish him. He was the father of "legal positivism" the despicable theory that the constitution (regardless of its words) means precisely what the SCOTUS du jour says it means, subject to change by tomorrow's SCOTUS du jour. If you thought that I was supportive of Holmes's elitist nonsense about sterilizing hillbillies, I was not and you should consider yourself reassured.

If YOU agree with Holmes, nothing I can or would or should say would reassure you and a good thing too.

If you think I am factually wrong about Holmes, prove it.

[inquest]

No, that's only part of the solution. Crucifying, and I mean crucifying employers of illegal aliens is another.

If I want to do business with someone here in my own country, I should have the right to assume that he's here legally. If he's not, then he should be the one to face the legal consequences, not I. And securing the border will drastically reduce the ability of illegals to come here in the first place.

Then there's the issue of deporting all illegals who are here. Locking down the border doesn't address this.

I think it does address it. I think a very large part of the reason why there's little interest in deporting illegals is that there's no incentive; more will just come keep coming in. Once the flow is cut off, then efforts to deport them will be much more effective.

[BlackElk]

I won't have to answer for Michael Moore or Ward Churchill because I attack them and do not uphold them. Nor will I be responsible for the likes of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., because I revile his disservice on the bench and particularly his elitist disgracefulness in approving the sterilization of hillbilly youths. Lenin and Hitler were dead before I was born and I also don't think much of either of them.

As to the rest of your post, Prohibition was aimed against Catholics and the Immigration Acts (pre-1950) were aimed at limiting immigration to people "like" the dominant "us" of the time, i.e. Nordics, Brits, Germans. My wife is half Norwegian and half Brit. I am 1/4 Brit, 1/4 Irish (the 1/4 I most identify with), 1/8 Scots-Irish, 1/8 Scot, and 1/4 German. Neither of us would have had ancestors who would have been limited by these "racial and nationality quality control" immigration acts prescribing quotas of this ethnic group or that and suppressing those from "different cultures." That does not mean that we would support such limitations on "cultural" grounds.

For those conservatives who feel they will be overwhelmed by the taxes occasioned by social services to the immigrants from south of the border, reduce social benefits generally. We ARE conservatives, are we not? You can not constitutionally restrict social services to citizens. The 14th Amendment requires equal protection of "persons" not just citizens. That does not mean I think it SHOULD be that way but that I am willing to recognize the reality. We are not about to repeal or significantly alter the 14th Amendment and ought not to waste time trying.

If you do not think it flattering that American history has much to do with anti-Catholic movements and laws, too bad, but truth is nonetheless truth. The church lady crowd (Carrie Nation and the WCTU was not a Catholic group, to say the least) was just appalled and infuriated by those awful papists. This is NOT playing a victimization card, NOT playing a race card (the RCC contains all races), NOT whining. We have proven that by our basic method which weakened in recent decades. Have more kids than those other guys, commit them to basic principles (preferably in a separate system or systems of schooling), register them to vote, see to it that they vote. The Protestants who agree with us on social issues are the ones with the big families. Likewise, the Orthodox Jews who agree with us are the ones with large families. The immigrants have big families too. Shall they be with us or against us politically? The Junior League is NOT going to come to our assistance on social issues but then their birthrate is rather low.

That every anti-immigrant thrust is concededly NOT motivated by racism does not mean that FAIR and a LOT of the border patrol types are not at all distant from racism in "cultural stability" drag.

This business about citizenship and sobriety is another disguise. If I have three glasses of wine a year, it is a big year for me and alcohol. I never drink beer or hard liquor. I run a risk of being de-Irishized if caught. On the other hand, we Irish will certainly concede that the primary symptom of Irish arthritis is getting stiff in a different joint every night. We even laugh about it. ook at the boxing leprechaun symbol of once-Catholic Notre Dame University. I have known an Eastern European Catholic or two to quaff more than a normal quota of even boilermakers. I have known even a few Protestants to be fond of the grape but the ones behind Prohibition were not them but the insufferable teatotalling churchladies, shocked, just shocked!!!, about violations of "sobriety and citizenship." They were much more concerned about neighborhood entertainment gurus like Chicago's Dion O'Bannion and Al Capone than about Elmer Gantry or Billy Sunday.

An additional factor is the view taken by many Protestants about St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans which they believe requires robotic, lockstep, mindless obeisance and obedience to government almost almighty. There is a certain positive libertarianism among the Irish Americans who are aware of how their ancestors in the Ould Sod were treated by their Brit bosses and landlords for about 7 centuries. We have thumbed our noses among other things against all things British, including government most particularly for a verrrrry long time and that displeases the nanny-nagging churchladies. We produce voters and use them to prevail.

Are we next going to disrupt the currently prevailing abortion culture of the United States whether the Darwinians at the Junior League like it or not??? You bet we are and by whatever means necessary. If you have not heard that yet, then you heard it here first. Mark it down.

What we cannot withstand is the depopulation promised by an average annual abortion rate of 1.5 million. When that problem is thoroughly suppressed, get back to me about the borders.

Crushing racial quotas is always a good thing. It will be good when we scrap racial quotas for college and university admissions, for scholarship aid, for jobs. It will be a good thing when we abolish racial quotas altogether in immigration processes as well. It is not just good if and when it benefits me or my iommediate family. It is only in the Anglo-American world that racial obsessions rule. Describe for me the last Latin American race riot. The Latin Americans have Caucasian ancestry, black ancestry, Moorish ancestry and mostly Native American ancestry. They have long since intermarried and race is no longer a controversy among them. We should be so fortunate but we won't be if we insist on making believe that there is no racism in the resistance to immigration. Note that I did NOT say that all who resist immigration are racist but that there is an influential wing that is racist.

Taking time to assimilate those already here is a fine idea but not if it assimilates them to be more sympathetic to abortion and lavender "marriage."

Taking time to study and understand the identity and purposes of the likes of Margaret Sanger, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard (preferably by reading their books in which they spoke for themselves). Clue: They were not conservative as we understand that term today. Stoddard wrote a book against the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of the World War I era but don't miss his classic: The Rising Tide of Color, which represents his life's work and Sanger's.

If the conservative movement does not systematically resist such tainted organizations as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the movement will pay a powerful price. Immigration is nothing by comparison in terms of potential damage. If you don't agree, I am sorry because you argue reasonably (other than your first point as to Michael Moore and Ward Churchill, but I am NOT going to change my mind, and turn my back on the experience of my Irish ancestors and on their wisdom.

[inquest]

and a LOT of the border patrol types are not at all distant from racism in "cultural stability" drag.

Do you plan on backing up this gratuitous comment any time soon?

[rdb3]

If I want to do business with someone here in my own country, I should have the right to assume that he's here legally.

My point was not about assumptions. And when you assume, well, you've heard that one before and it's completely true.

If he's not, then he should be the one to face the legal consequences, not I.

That was my point, also. If you are not the one employing illegal aliens, then it's no skin off your nose.

And securing the border will drastically reduce the ability of illegals to come here in the first place.

Yes, but that's still only a part of the problem, not the whole kit and kaboodle.

I think a very large part of the reason why there's little interest in deporting illegals is that there's no incentive; more will just come keep coming in. Once the flow is cut off, then efforts to deport them will be much more effective.

Border lockdown is paramount, but you have not made the case about what it does about illegals already here. Locking it down does not deport anyone. Not one.

If we are going to be serious about this, citizens who are concerned and politicians can not do this piecemeal. Lock it down, deport illegals, and barbecue employers of illegals. All of the above.

[Age of Reason]

Way too many people.

Time to end immigration altogether.

[BlackElk]

What I am saying is that people move north across our southern borders in order to earn a far better living (not a lot by our standards) than is available in their home countries. By and large, they have less interest in listening to the lies of politicians on either side of the border as to pie in the sky by and by than they have in improving their living situations and income and future right now. We should stop the pretense that Mexicans preparing to cross our borders without a by your leave from the calcified immigration bureaucracy are really concerned about our inane immigration laws compared with the future of their families.

Ahhhh, but aren't they breaking American law???? Yes, indeed and they will continue to do so. If four or five children had been born to each American family over the last forty years, you would not be seeing Mexicans and others flooding northward to take advantage of what amount to labor shortages (particularly as compared to rural Mexico).

Well, by darn, that will just have to come to an end because we are a democracy (or a democratic republic) and WE SAY SO!!!!! Easier said than done. It is a big border with Mexico and a bigger border with Canada and a still bigger coastline on the Atloantic, the Gulf and the Pacfic. Are we planning on a new Iron Curtain around America?????

One sure thing that the Mexicans take into consideration is the availability of jobs in the US befoe coming here.

[BlackElk]

cyborg: Me too!

austinite: I think that the Immigration Act of 1924, was a racist and unconstitutional (14th Amendment Equal Protection of persons) piece of, ummmm, legalistic garbage designed to control America's ethnicity.

petronski: How about you?

[austinite]

Well, by darn, that will just have to come to an end because we are a democracy (or a democratic republic) and WE SAY SO!!!!!

Your elegantly stated but childish argument extended to it's logical (or illogical) conclusion would be: Since these Mexican keep coming and coming and we can stop it, things must be so bad in Mexico, It MUST BE OUR MANIFEST DESTINY to annex Mexico. That way pregnant women don't have to walk across the desert anymore. No more coyotes, take Greyhound!

[Admin Moderator]

To whom it may concern, please knock off the personal stuff.

[BlackElk]

Sounds like a plan and one that ought to be agreed to by those concerned about stabilizing and protecting our existing culture. Opposing lavender mania is opposition to bad behavior not opposition to one's race or ethnicity. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Tar and feather? Good stuff. Need to apply it more often to miscreants.

[cyborg]

I'm going to heed the moderator's words and enjoy this outrageously gorgeous day in NY.

[hershey]

Reality is Mexican and other illegals sending enormous quantities of money back home -- where the heart is. They stay here, using up scarce resources, most, at least at first, with no intention of staying forever. But they get comfortable and it's hard to leave. Learning English is a pain, so why not make the US accomodate them and learn Spanish? (That's well underway.)

The fact is most won't leave unless deported. Conditions back in Mexico or wherever aren't likely to improve, and they get used to a job and a roof over their heads, etc. Two illegals in California were interviewed on NPR a week or so ago, girls graduating from college. They'd had a free ride all these years and now complain they're worried about being denied a 'good' job. So they plan to get married (or not, depending), but have three children right away, (anchor babies). They'll be all set and the children won't ever have to worry having a hard time, or going back to Mexico. Although they still love Mexico, they don't want to live there for some reason.

I started this rant with the notion that Mexican illegals at some point will realize they outnumber the rest of us and will simply take over. We'll be MiniMexico. Ultimately, if they're not assimilated, and there are too many for that, our culture, work ethic, and American way of life will vanish.

[BlackElk]

Inquest:

I am a bit long in the tooth to be very good at such computer tasks as posting links or to spend time learning new tricks.

There are a group of moonbats down near the border who designate themselves by the name American Border Patrol who run around in the desert at night in their pickups, heads bandana-wrapped with six-packs and shotguns, baying at the moon and searching for "illegals," while behaving like refugees from "Mad Max." They took the name to suggest some sort of official status when they have none whatsoever. Sometimes, when sober, they have managed to terrorize some women and kiddies for looking Mexican and being out at night. When they succeed, they are often arrested as their prey are released.

Oh yes, can I back it up????? The newsletter on line of these loons has specifically attacked the late Pope John Paul II for his public call for easing immigration restrictions world-wide. The moonbats are entitled to their opinions. I am entitled to mine as to their motives. If you disagree, that's nice, but you don't really expect me to agree with you, do you???????? Oh, and "cultural stability" is an obvious codeword for social calcification: equivalent of "I've got mine and to heck with you!"

Border mania is an embarassment to genuine conservatism.

Also, fess up. You well know that you will lose on this issue and lose bigtime. All you can do is complain and delay things long enough to alienate the immigrants from their natural social conservatism. Tancredo is NOT going to become president on a platform that would have kept his grandparents out of the US. The US is not returning to exclusionary policies. You and those who believe with you may well mean well but you are being had by those who would "wedge" conservatives!

[sittnick]

This is going to be a difficult issue to resolve. The folks who are most anti-illegal immigration also call for the most restrictions on legal immigration. If the 1924 controls came in, and were extended to Latin America, how would that stem illegal immigration?

Well, some would call for a deep trench, or a high fence, or plentiful guard towers on our southern borders. Be careful: any physical means to keep outsiders from coming stateside could be easily converted to keeping Americans in, if something like a French Revolution-type situation ever arrived here.

My solution would be three-fold, and PROBABLY unpopular with everybody here. Make the legal immigration quotas higher, much higher, giving preference to countries where real persecution is happening (Cuba, Red China, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, etc.) and to our neighbors (Mexico, the Caribbean and Canada [full disclosure: my wife is Canadian, and getting the green card was no picnic]). Second, for a set period of time (five years?), the immigrant (screened mainly for true criminal behaviour) has to go where he is told to go. NOT to his family in Southern California, NOT to Texas, Not to NYC or Miami. Those folks gave at the office. No, they would go to Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas and similar areas. Heck, send a bunch to Vermont and a decade later see how many social liberals you have in office . . . IF the Republicans can make them feel welcome. Military service could provide an exemption from assigned areas, of course. Deportation of illegals, however must be stepped up as the stick to go with the carrot.

Now, if immigrants as a class are such trouble, even if the influx is more spread out, then the political will to restrain it will also spread to these areas. I'm willing to bet that they are not any worse than the Latinos here in Rockford, Illinois or Aurora. This overall plan could be fine-tuned. But I would like to see something that is PRO-immigrant, anti-ILLEGAL immgrant (without making legality close to impossible) and provide some relief from the areas that get disrupted the most by illegal immigration.

[BlackElk]

Thanks for demonstrating the ideological connection between Zero Population Growth and border obsession!

[hershey]

DC is working on your suggestion.

[hershey]

One more point -- another Islamofascist terror attack on a US city, with proof the bad guys entered illegally from south of the border, and border security questions will be moot. It's also been reported that both parties in Congress are preparing border security bills.

[BlackElk]

I'm on board for that. So somebody agrees with you! If many here could know your wife as I do, they would see the virtues of immigration instantly.

An additional suggestion would be that immigration authorities here be required to actually read and review immigration applications rather than storing them in warehouses. People in other countries might respect our immigration laws more if they thought the authorities would act legally. Then, expulsions of "illegals" might be better respected as a remedy.

In any event, God bless you and yours.

[BlackElk]

All pinged and all others:

If an Islamofascisti terrorist enters from Canada, will the Mexicans be blamed as well???? In that event, should we keep out of the US people like Sittnick's wife just because she came from Canada? How do you propose to enforce strict resistance to border crossings? At what expense to our military and its obligations in the wars? Remember that border control also requires coastline control. Where do the necessary personnel come from, assuming you can concoct and enact a constitutional plan to seal off our country? Where does the money come from? Higher taxes or spending cuts? Do we sit still for civilian patrols and take responsibility if they injure or kill people in their zeal?

What about Sittnick's wise observation that the fence that keeps illegals out can also be used to keep us in? Is it not axiomatic that the freedom to leave is among the most important rights for those who do not give total trust to government?

As we each type, there are more Hispanics in the USA already than African Americans. How do you seal the borders while avoiding permanent alienation of Hispanics already here including an estimated 10 million unamnestied "illegals?" Do you want Hispanic votes for conservative causes and candidates? If not, why not?

Do you deny that Hispanic immigrants are more likely to be social conservatives than are the ancestral six-generation "Republican" types like Senators Jeffords and Chaffee??? Or the folks down at the polo club, the yacht club, the Junior League?

I trust that these questions posed to many of differing opinions offend no one of good will and faclitate discussion.