Border wall prototypes

[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.