Posted on 02/03/2014 5:22:03 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Mass migration without a Welfare State has been good for the country. I would not be here if it was not for the mass migration of the late 1800s. The issue, as always, is mass migration coupled with a bunch of free government benefits. It is what will destroy us. America is broke and yet we not only continue the spending binge, we are telling more people to join the party on out credit card.
It’s legal immigration, Stupid. Phyllis Schlafly reveals the elephant in the room. The Dems don’t need amnesty or illegal aliens to become the permanent majority party. The future Dem voters are coming thru the front door to the tune of about 1.1 million a year.
It will be interesting to the see the sobering disappointement of the "electorate" when expectations of ever expanding government collide with painful economic realities. Our colossal debt will soon bring about national economic calamity and hardship. The die is cast. Its just a matter of time.
When there is no more money for big government, the freebies are cut back, and there is widespread deprivation, some will be forced to recognize that socialism always ends in failure.
Its going to be a painful lesson.
We don’t need mass immigration with or without the welfare state.
Because we are the US of A, we have the opportunity to pick-and-choose immigrants from all over the world (or even none in we prefer). But instead of choosing the best and the brightest, let's take in millions of barely literate Third Worlders because after all that's where our new entrepreneurs and inventors and industry pioneers will come from.
Hear Hear, RF....Pick people who want to be citizens ....not just grab money and go home...
Not always so.
The first “progressive” push 100 years ago (that resulted in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Amendments) were the result of allowing in hordes of Catholics, who formed the backbone of the union movement in the US, then started the zealotry for abortion and women’s issues.
Catholic-majority countries have been basket cases since the French Revolution, everywhere around the world. The more Catholics we allow into the country, the larger the welfare rolls will become, and the more leftwards our political “center” slides.
Exactly.
And we had immigration down to a pretty comfortable level... until the Catholics decided they were tired of being repressed and Teddy Kennedy pushed through the immigration act in 1965. Then the floodgates were opened and we’ve been going downhill ever since.
We were bringing in 250,00 to 300,000 a year from 1924 to 1965. Then the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed to make the population of the US look more like the rest of the world. It was part of the Civil Rights movement and really wasn't caused by Catholics.
What do you think led to a welfare state and destroyed America?
The original Americans are still voting largely as they were 150-200 years ago, look at the immigration battles of a 100 years ago and you will see that conservatives are facing the same thing they always have from the left working to import immigrants who lean in their direction.
The American left has always promoted Catholic immigration, just as they are in modern times, for instance the 1965 bill.
“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s.
In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin. After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.” Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”
Exactly, I'm amazed at how "illegal" is used by some conservatives, even by some freepers, to derail immigration discussion.
The 1965 Immigration Act was pushed by the Left period. Jews, Catholics, Asians, blacks, etc. They wanted to remake America to look like the rest of the world. And some Reps joined them.
"Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of "racism" and "imperialism," they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack "discrimination," did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.
Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.
Senator Hiram Fong, R-Hawaii, calculated that "the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population." Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for three percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)
The only remaining Congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler, D-New York, insisted, "There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country." Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.
Whether the 1800s or the 1900s, or the 2000s.
The American left has always promoted Catholic immigration, just as they are in modern times, for instance the 1965 bill.
Even here, go to the Catholic threads and try to get the supposedly pro-life, conservative, Catholics to agree with you about ending immigration.
Even you in your quoted text, left out this part. The part most relevant to the post you were responding to, post 13.
What was JFK’s and the left’s reasons? They were the same they had been since at least the mid 1800s as they needed a new kind of American that would help them create unions and get a socialist, central authority, oriented voter.
“”Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. “”
The Asians voted for Obama in 2008 because McCain called them gooks (or so they thought). They voted for Obama again in 2012 out of affirmative action, unwillingness to admit mistakes, Obama's pandering (Steven Chu was the worst secretary of energy ever but waited to quit until after the election), and general anti-white racism.
I don't see all those circumstances repeating again. Maybe some but not all. I would not lump Asians with Hispanics.
Motivated by parochial self-interest, the pro-mass immigration, open borders, amnesty advocates have formed a powerful coalition including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor union leaders, the Catholic Church and other national church leaders, ethnic and racial groups, “moderate” Republicans, and the Democrat Party. The common thread that unites these groups is power, money, and the prospect of increased constituencies, even at the expense of our long-term national interests and survival.
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.