Border wall prototypes

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2017, 05:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We already limit immigration from every country.

If we didn't there wouldn't be any illegal immigrants.

We don’t limit like I want..... I want to return to the 1924 standards

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2017, 04:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is Russia on this magical list of "good" countries we should accept immigrants from?

I have no issues with Russia but they shouldn’t be on the same level at the UK.

Too long of an adversarial history.

I would put them on the same level as Germany.

[Dill]

(10-31-2017, 10:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don’t limit like I want.....  I want to return to the 1924 standards

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote:

I have no problem standing by this act. But the least you could do is be genuine and give the whole story instead of some cherry picked headline.

Truth is we should ban from particular regions either because of military action or Due to a large illegal population.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

Quote:Milestones: 1921–1936 - Office of the Historian

The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)

Introduction

The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia.


President Coolidge signing the Johnson-Reed Act

Literacy Tests and “Asiatic Barred Zone”

In 1917, the U.S. Congress enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. The uncertainty generated over national security during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this legislation, and it included several important provisions that paved the way for the 1924 Act. The 1917 Act implemented a literacy test that required immigrants over 16 years old to demonstrate basic reading comprehension in any language. It also increased the tax paid by new immigrants upon arrival and allowed immigration officials to exercise more discretion in making decisions over whom to exclude. Finally, the Act excluded from entry anyone born in a geographically defined “Asiatic Barred Zone” except for Japanese and Filipinos. In 1907, the Japanese Government had voluntarily limited Japanese immigration to the United States in the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Philippines was a U.S. colony, so its citizens were U.S. nationals and could travel freely to the United States. China was not included in the Barred Zone, but the Chinese were already denied immigration visas under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Immigration Quotas

The literacy test alone was not enough to prevent most potential immigrants from entering, so members of Congress sought a new way to restrict immigration in the 1920s. Immigration expert and Republican Senator from Vermont William P. Dillingham introduced a measure to create immigration quotas, which he set at three percent of the total population of the foreign-born of each nationality in the United States as recorded in the 1910 census. This put the total number of visas available each year to new immigrants at 350,000. It did not, however, establish quotas of any kind for residents of the Western Hemisphere. President Wilson opposed the restrictive act, preferring a more liberal immigration policy, so he used the pocket veto to prevent its passage. In early 1921, the newly inaugurated President Warren Harding called Congress back to a special session to pass the law. In 1922, the act was renewed for another two years.


Senator William P. Dillingham

When the congressional debate over immigration began in 1924, the quota system was so well-established that no one questioned whether to maintain it, but rather discussed how to adjust it. Though there were advocates for raising quotas and allowing more people to enter, the champions of restriction triumphed. They created a plan that lowered the existing quota from three to two percent of the foreign-born population. They also pushed back the year on which quota calculations were based from 1910 to 1890.

Another change to the quota altered the basis of the quota calculations. The quota had been based on the number of people born outside of the United States, or the number of immigrants in the United States. The new law traced the origins of the whole of the U.S. population, including natural-born citizens. The new quota calculations included large numbers of people of British descent whose families had long resided in the United States. As a result, the percentage of visas available to individuals from the British Isles and Western Europe increased, but newer immigration from other areas like Southern and Eastern Europe was limited.

The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating – the Japanese in particular – would no longer be admitted to the United States. Many in Japan were very offended by the new law, which was a violation of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Japanese government protested, but the law remained, resulting in an increase in existing tensions between the two nations. Despite the increased tensions, it appeared that the U.S. Congress had decided that preserving the racial composition of the country was more important than promoting good ties with Japan.

The restrictive principles of the Act could have resulted in strained relations with some European countries as well, but these potential problems did not appear for several reasons. The global depression of the 1930s, World War II, and stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration policy served to curtail European emigration. When these crises had passed, emergency provisions for the resettlement of displaced persons in 1948 and 1950 helped the United States avoid conflict over its new immigration laws.

In all of its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity. Congress revised the Act in 1952.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-31-2017, 10:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have no problem standing by this act. But the least you could do is be genuine and give the whole story instead of some cherry picked headline.

Truth is we should ban from particular regions either because of military action or Due to a large illegal population.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

What do you think that last part about preserving homogeneity means?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-31-2017, 10:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don’t limit like I want..... I want to return to the 1924 standards

You wrote, "limit immigration from each country," which we do. You did not write' "limit immigration from each country like I want."

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-31-2017, 05:07 PM)Benton Wrote: And Canada. They burned the White House. 

Historically, I think we'd have to go with France and Turkey as the short list of developed countries we haven't actively engaged in war with. 

Also a good points, especially considering that France helped liberate us from England.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2017, 11:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What do you think that last part about preserving homogeneity means?

Carefully selecting the best of the world to come here is not a bad thing for this country. Besides we have decades of illegals to comb through and we need to slow the amount of immigrants.

And yes I want to preserve what we have, we are worse off with ghettos of Third worlders who come here and refuse to speak the language.

We were better off under the 1924 act because we could control immigration and they were able to assimilate into our culture. Not just form theirs in a ghetto.

[GMDino]

I really don't know why people want to tiptoe around what they really want to say.

It makes me think they know how awful it is and how they will be treated when their true beliefs are made public.

At least in the "good old days" people were upfront.  



Of course they were a strong majority in all aspect of American life then.  Becoming more of a minority (both in population and in that belief) has probably reinforced their beliefs.  



Of course the more they become a minority the angrier they will be.



But while they will never be completely gone at least their "reasoning" is going away more and more.

[*Nately120*]

Have we tried not hiring illegal immigrants yet?

[StLucieBengal]

(11-01-2017, 11:07 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Have we tried not hiring illegal immigrants yet?

We should be going after those that do hire them.

[Dill]

(10-31-2017, 10:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have no problem standing by this act.   But the least you could do is be genuine and give the whole story instead of some cherry picked headline.  

Truth is we should ban from particular regions either because of military action or Due to a large illegal population.  

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

YOW! The "whole story" does not rescue US ideals of racial equality from my cherry picked headline.


The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating – the Japanese in particular – would no longer be admitted to the United States. Many in Japan were very offended by the new law, which was a violation of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Japanese government protested, but the law remained, resulting in an increase in existing tensions between the two nations. Despite the increased tensions, it appeared that the U.S. Congress had decided that preserving the racial composition of the country was more important than promoting good ties with Japan.


Choose your "whole stories" wisely, Lucy. The immigration act of 1924 was based upon racist/eugenicist conceptions of "foreign blood" and fears it could pollute Anglo Saxon culture--already compromised by Southern European, Slav and Irish immigration.

Your opinion regarding the banning of foreigners is not "the truth" but a view common to contemporary nativist politics. This is a question of value, not of fact.

[*Nately120*]

(11-01-2017, 11:29 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We should be going after those that do hire them.

Yeah, but that would mean punishing mostly white, American job-creators and that goes against our narrative of being victimized by a swarm of amoral minorities.  Also, didn't Trump hire illegals?  Maybe if we just throw him in jail the rest of his ilk will straighten up and get the message.

Cut off the head and the body dies, and all that jazz, right?

[Dill]

(11-01-2017, 09:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Of course the more they become a minority the angrier they will be.



But while they will never be completely gone at least their "reasoning" is going away more and more.

LOL perfect.  I miss the bloviator.

[Dill]

(11-01-2017, 09:11 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Carefully selecting the best of the world to come here is not a bad thing for this country.   Besides we have decades of illegals to comb through and we need to slow the amount of immigrants.    

And yes I want to preserve what we have, we are worse off with ghettos of Third worlders who come here and refuse to speak the language.  

We were better off under the 1924 act because we could control immigration and they were able to assimilate into our culture.    Not just form theirs in a ghetto.

Gosh Lucy. Please don't get angry with me for continuing to respond. But so much of what you are saying here simply not factual.

Immigrants did form ghettos throughout the 19th century and they persisted into the late 20th century in Chicago, New York, Boston etc.
Many "refused to speak the language." Nativists did not want them even if they did want to assimilate because they were not "white."

Finally-- the "best of the world," coupled with your adulation of the 1924 Immigration Act, appears to revive and deploy racial and ethnic categories much in line with those of pre WWII America.  Correct?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-01-2017, 09:11 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Carefully selecting the best of the world to come here is not a bad thing for this country.

I can agree that vetting immigrants as best we can is a good thing. The same way I believe in better background checks for gun ownership rather than gun bans.

Quote:Besides we have decades of illegals to comb through and we need to slow the amount of immigrants.

So we can't enforce the immigration laws on the books now, what makes you think we can enforce new laws any better?

If gun control won't stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns, what makes you think new immigration quotas will stop the illegal immigrants from immigrating illegally?

Quote:And yes I want to preserve what we have, we are worse off with ghettos of Third worlders who come here and refuse to speak the language.

The preservation of homogeneity is designed to keep white America white. The quota system of the 1924 immigration act is inherently racist by designed and increased the visas issued to white Northern Europeans at the expense of everyone else to include Eastern and Southern Europeans because they weren't white and Protestant enough.

In addition to being racist the quota percentage are completely arbitrary. For example, why 3% instead of 5%, 8%, 10% or any other percent.

Quote:We were better off under the 1924 act because we could control immigration and they were able to assimilate into our culture. Not just form theirs in a ghetto.

We were better off in 1924?

Okay, show me some objective data we were better off in 1924 compared to 2017 because I don't believe you.

Finally, we're going to need poor immigrants to fight our wars because true blue, red blooded patriots like you and Trump were too busy to serve in the military because you were too busy playing football and Trumps fictitious bone spurs prevented him from leaving the golf course in the 60s and 70s.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-01-2017, 11:57 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I can agree that vetting immigrants as best we can is a good thing. The same way I believe in better background checks for gun ownership rather than gun bans.


So we can't enforce the immigration laws on the books now, what makes you think we can enforce new laws any better?

If gun control won't stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns, what makes you think new immigration quotas will stop the illegal immigrants from immigrating illegally?


The preservation of homogeneity is designed to keep white America white. The quota system of the 1924 immigration act is inherently racist by designed and increased the visas issued to white Northern Europeans at the expense of everyone else to include Eastern and Southern Europeans because they weren't white and Protestant enough.

In addition to being racist the quota percentage are completely arbitrary. For example, why 3% instead of 5%, 8%, 10% or any other percent.



We were better off in 1924?

Okay, show me some objective data we were better off in 1924 compared to 2017 because I don't believe you.

Finally, we're going to need poor immigrants to fight our wars because true blue, red blooded patriots like you and Trump were too busy to serve in the military because you were too busy playing football and Trumps fictitious bone spurs prevented him from leaving the golf course in the 60s and 70s.

1. We agree on more vetting.

2. We should be enforcing the laws. We should also curb entrance into this country at least while we sort through the millions of illegals who are who have been running around unchecked for decades.

3. Quotas slow the flow of new immigrants. As I have said it’s necessary while we clean up the illegals currently here..... if we want to be able to adequately sort them out and even possibly giving them a chance to be legal we need to lessen the burden from people coming.

4. So only white people live Europe now? The world is different and by restricting to 3% non whites are not being short changed. This coupled with a point system we will get the best people. And give enforcement a Chance to work.

5. It was 2% and later raised.

6. We were better off with a restricted immigration. We have had an influx of restricted immigration and open immigration throughout history. We just need about 10-15 years of restriction to sort out all these illegals.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-01-2017, 11:44 AM)Dill Wrote: Gosh Lucy. Please don't get angry with me for continuing to respond. But so much of what you are saying here simply not factual.

Immigrants did form ghettos throughout the 19th century and they persisted into the late 20th century in Chicago, New York, Boston etc.
Many "refused to speak the language." Nativists did not want them even if they did want to assimilate because they were not "white."

Finally-- the "best of the world," coupled with your adulation of the 1924 Immigration Act, appears to revive and deploy racial and ethnic categories much in line with those of pre WWII America.  Correct?

Lol

You don’t think this Country has immigrant ghettos?

I was literally down in a Haitian ghetto today barely any English spoken.

Wanting immigrants to fit in and join the rest of us isn’t Nativist. And never have I said I wanted to stop all black or brown people from coming.

This is a moderate restriction to allow us to catch up and allow immigrants a chance to assimilate.

Stop living in your dream world where everything is racist unless it’s your idea.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-01-2017, 02:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1. We agree on more vetting.

2. We should be enforcing the laws. We should also curb entrance into this country at least while we sort through the millions of illegals who are who have been running around unchecked for decades.

Again, how are we going to enforce new rules when you claim we aren't enforcing the ones we currently have?

Quote:3. Quotas slow the flow of new immigrants. As I have said it’s necessary while we clean up the illegals currently here..... if we want to be able to adequately sort them out and even possibly giving them a chance to be legal we need to lessen the burden from people coming.

Quotas would only affect those immigrating legally much like conservatives claim gun control laws would only affect law abiding citizens.

Quote:4. So only white people live Europe now? The world is different and by restricting to 3% non whites are not being short changed. This coupled with a point system we will get the best people. And give enforcement a Chance to work.

I never claimed only White people live in Northern Europe. But, there is an increased concentration of white Protestants in Northern Europe compared to Japan for instance. If we applied your proposed 3% quota to Northern Europe and Japan "equally" so as not to discriminate based upon race (because after all this is the home of the brave and the land of the free) because there are more people in America of Northern European descent than Japanese descent more visas will be issued to immigrants coming from Northern Europe. Since Northern Europe has more Whites and less Asians (and Japan has less Whites and more Asians) more White Northern Europeans will be granted visas compared to visas issued to Japanese immigrants. The more White Northern European immigrants that get in the greater the number of visas which will be granted to that area in the future. The fewer Japanese immigrants granted visas will conversely decrease the number of visas issued in the future.

Quote:5. It was 2% and later raised.

Just because it was raised to 3% doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

Quote:6. We were better off with a restricted immigration. We have had an influx of restricted immigration and open immigration throughout history. We just need about 10-15 years of restriction to sort out all these illegals.

This is nothing but opinion. I want to see objective data demonstrating we were better off in 1924 compared to 2017.

[Dill]

(11-01-2017, 02:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol
You don’t think this Country has immigrant ghettos?  

I was literally down in a Haitian ghetto today barely any English spoken.  

Wanting immigrants to fit in and join the rest of us isn’t Nativist.  And never have I said I wanted to stop all black or brown people from coming.  

This is a moderate restriction to allow us to catch up and allow immigrants a chance to assimilate.  

Stop living in your dream world where everything is racist unless it’s your idea.

 
Your complaint was immigrants were forming ghettos and not assimilating--unlike previous immigrants.  My point was that previous immigrants also formed ghettos and refused to assimilate.  This does not deny the fact that immigrants continue to form ghettos. It only denies the claim the new immigrants behave differently.  

Sending me a snapshot of a Haitian ghetto in Florida hardly refutes a point that was not made.

You affirmed the Immigration Act of 1924, which was founded upon racist/eugenicist theories.  Eugenics and the 1924 act were not my idea, were they?  US immigration policies until the 1960s were explicitly race and ethnically based. When you appeal to these policies as suitable for the present, you should not be surprised if people ask whether race plays a role in your immigration preference. If it does not then most people will listen as you explain why.  Asking about or pointing out the racist precedents is not the same as calling someone a racist. 

However, complaining that people call "everything" racist when we are talking about policies explicitly grounded in racist theories is just whipping up dust around the question.

I believe you have in the past associated "progressives" with racism and eugenics in the past. Wilson maybe, Margaret Sanger? Was it bad when/if they supported racist/eugenicist theories?