J
Jeffrey
Guest
Yup… anti ILLEGAL immigration. For some reason ppl like to twist that into anti immigration. For the life of me… .I can’t figure out why ppl would think that. But hey… whatever.
- Status
I
Ituyu
Guest
Hah!! Let’s see your anti “illegal” immigration only you say?
Are you for the “legal” process pased by the Senate that would allow them to legalize thier status? NO!!
Are you for opening the “legal” door to more of these immigrants already here?..NO!!
Would you favor more “legal” immigration to meet our labor needs?..NO!!
Your argument is much like the Pro-Choice camp when they say, “were not pro-abortion, we’re pro-choice”. You say, ‘We’re not anti-immigrant we’re just in favor of keeping THEM the hell out of here’!
I
Ituyu
Guest
quote=Fremont;1613007]
While the targets of immigration exclusion have varied over time, Hing demonstrates a remarkable consistency in official pronouncements over who deserves the title of “American.” During the early colonial era, Quakers were targeted for their purported lack of allegiance. The so-called “Alien and Sedition” acts, four pieces of legislation *838] that include the Naturalization Act, passed in 1798, provide the first legal statement of the normative notion of who is considered an “American.” - etc. etc. edited due to size limits.
Boy oh boy, here we go again. Another posting by someone who wants to focus on the doughnut hole rather than the doughnut, who relishes only in the negatives and never wants to see any positives.
That from somebody who refuses to see the positives, or the NET gains of “illegal” immigration.
I do that Hing was referring to our use of Slavery and our views on the indigenous since our first settlements. Perhaps I missed the class that taught about the positive aspects of Slavery and their cruel treatment.
Chances are Mr. Hing’s historical renditions are reasonably accurate but they certainly exclude any references to positive history. Sure there was, and to some extent still is, individual discrimination in the US against various groups at various times. Individual discrimination against others has been common throughout history in virtually every civilization and country in the world.
But that does not “prove” that current government policies, immigration or other, are discriminatory in any way.
He proves that our Immigration policies have always been founded in a way that favors the Anglo-Saxon and continues to be. One of his points is that there were no restrictions on that wave of immigration. For all the talk about how generous our current immigration policy is, it is restrictive on non-Anglo immigration. That is the whole intent and has been true from day one. I hardly think that the existence of discrimination in other countries makes it okay in ours.
Con’t
of detailed facts and legal citations, he wades through the complex legal measures that have guided immigration law and policy over more than two centuries, at each stage linking specific legal actions with dominant views of the “ordinary American.”
While the targets of immigration exclusion have varied over time, Hing demonstrates a remarkable consistency in official pronouncements over who deserves the title of “American.” During the early colonial era, Quakers were targeted for their purported lack of allegiance. The so-called “Alien and Sedition” acts, four pieces of legislation *838] that include the Naturalization Act, passed in 1798, provide the first legal statement of the normative notion of who is considered an “American.” - etc. etc. edited due to size limits.
Boy oh boy, here we go again. Another posting by someone who wants to focus on the doughnut hole rather than the doughnut, who relishes only in the negatives and never wants to see any positives.
That from somebody who refuses to see the positives, or the NET gains of “illegal” immigration.
I do that Hing was referring to our use of Slavery and our views on the indigenous since our first settlements. Perhaps I missed the class that taught about the positive aspects of Slavery and their cruel treatment.
Chances are Mr. Hing’s historical renditions are reasonably accurate but they certainly exclude any references to positive history. Sure there was, and to some extent still is, individual discrimination in the US against various groups at various times. Individual discrimination against others has been common throughout history in virtually every civilization and country in the world.
But that does not “prove” that current government policies, immigration or other, are discriminatory in any way.
He proves that our Immigration policies have always been founded in a way that favors the Anglo-Saxon and continues to be. One of his points is that there were no restrictions on that wave of immigration. For all the talk about how generous our current immigration policy is, it is restrictive on non-Anglo immigration. That is the whole intent and has been true from day one. I hardly think that the existence of discrimination in other countries makes it okay in ours.
Con’t
I
Ituyu
Guest
Want to look at history? With the inspiration of the Pope, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the western world, arguably in the entire world, combined efforts of its government and the Catholic clergy to exclude immigration of all “undesirable” groups. They then went on to purge citizens in all lands they controlled to eliminate Jews and others who were not considered acceptable, not the proper norm for the country, not an “ordinary” citizen. People were tortured and persecuted, their property was confiscated, many were killed, and many others were forced to leave the country permanently. This horrible situation continued for over 300 years. It was finally forced to stop by Napoleon, not by the Pope or any Catholic clergy
There is still the “Jewish Quarter” in Seville, Spain full of various Jewish remnants such as stone plaques of the “Star of David”. But of course there are no Jews there now, they were all killed or deported.
Slavery I believe is what Hing is referencing and with that in mind we know the following: "long before the U.S. experience, the Roman Catholic Church was an anti-slavery leader, and essentially ended slavery in Europe “before the middle of the fourteenth century,” says Francis Hargrave [1721-1841], in Somerset v Stewart, 20 Howell’s State Trials 1; 98 Eng Rep 499 (KB, 1772), pp 33-34 (1772). See also the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Slavery and Christianity.”
I think that Spain’s actions are of particular interest because one can readily see the parallels drawn from the expulsion of the Jews from Spain with the desire to create a situation here that would make “illegal” immigrants leave on their own. Spain was the loser in expelling the Jews and we would be the loser by expelling the “illegal” rather than giving those who are productive and law-abiding the opportunities that were denied them when the “legal” doors were closed because of unreasonably low quotas.
Con’t
There is still the “Jewish Quarter” in Seville, Spain full of various Jewish remnants such as stone plaques of the “Star of David”. But of course there are no Jews there now, they were all killed or deported.
Slavery I believe is what Hing is referencing and with that in mind we know the following: "long before the U.S. experience, the Roman Catholic Church was an anti-slavery leader, and essentially ended slavery in Europe “before the middle of the fourteenth century,” says Francis Hargrave [1721-1841], in Somerset v Stewart, 20 Howell’s State Trials 1; 98 Eng Rep 499 (KB, 1772), pp 33-34 (1772). See also the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Slavery and Christianity.”
I think that Spain’s actions are of particular interest because one can readily see the parallels drawn from the expulsion of the Jews from Spain with the desire to create a situation here that would make “illegal” immigrants leave on their own. Spain was the loser in expelling the Jews and we would be the loser by expelling the “illegal” rather than giving those who are productive and law-abiding the opportunities that were denied them when the “legal” doors were closed because of unreasonably low quotas.
No, but Hing is not talking about anything but our Immigration policies, past and present. He does “prove” the foundations of our immigration policies are indeed restrictive on non-Whites and how.
Restrictive policies are referred on to as “generous” on these threads. We take away but we do it generously, geez. We allowed Anglo Saxon immigration to continue unimpeded without even so much as a passport required for ID.
What distortion? Our Immigration policy is a reflection of our roots. England was the principal advocate of Slavery in this country. Africans were but chattel, inhuman personal possessions. That wasn’t Racist?
Con’t
I
Ituyu
Guest
I agree that Hing does not paint a pretty picture about the roots of Racism, which have made their way into our Immigration policies, past and present, but it is factual, well documented, truthful and accurate.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Legal and illegal are just status, a single stroke of a pen in Washington DC can change that status. This has happened before. From a science, moral, economic point the status places no significance. In my opinion (IMO)most who post here opposing “illegal’s” would oppose any effort by any means to simply change the status. And for folk like me the status plays no importance. By the way(BTW) this is actually why many states and cities are passing laws to undermine deportation process - if DC won’t address the root cause the city/state is refusing to fund the clean up work
F
Fremont
Guest
The point is that there are no current US immigration laws that are racist or unfairly block immigration of nationals usually considered minorities in the US. Neither Mr. Hing nor anyone else has shown us any US immigration law that does so.
History cannot be used to draw implications about what current laws are and history is certainly not any sort of “proof”.
I would not be surprised that other critical treatises have been written that focus on corporate monopolies of the 19th century or the 100 yeas of segregation we had or industrialist’s suppression of labor unions. All true but we have changed or added laws to address those issues. We no longer have unjust monopolies; they are illegal under current US law, we no longer have racial segregation; that is illegal under current US law, we have organized unions and the right to organize is protected under current US law.
No matter what happened in history it is our current laws that are applicable today.
No matter what happened in history that does not make those actions “the foundation” of our current immigration law.
The facts speak for themselves. Over 80% of immigrants welcomed to the US are minorities under current views. If anything our current immigration laws bend over backward to give preferences to racial minorities.
I have worked with many immigrants from the UK and from Canada and I know this is the case.
History cannot be used to draw implications about what current laws are and history is certainly not any sort of “proof”.
I would not be surprised that other critical treatises have been written that focus on corporate monopolies of the 19th century or the 100 yeas of segregation we had or industrialist’s suppression of labor unions. All true but we have changed or added laws to address those issues. We no longer have unjust monopolies; they are illegal under current US law, we no longer have racial segregation; that is illegal under current US law, we have organized unions and the right to organize is protected under current US law.
No matter what happened in history it is our current laws that are applicable today.
No matter what happened in history that does not make those actions “the foundation” of our current immigration law.
The facts speak for themselves. Over 80% of immigrants welcomed to the US are minorities under current views. If anything our current immigration laws bend over backward to give preferences to racial minorities.
That is not true. Any visitor from the UK (Anglo-Saxon land) is required to have a valid passport and visa to enter the US. Any immigrant from the UK is required to have a passport and go through the immigration process just like everybody else. Any immigrant from Canada has to go through the immigration process just like anybody else. They are also required to have official permission to work in the US.
I have worked with many immigrants from the UK and from Canada and I know this is the case.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
J
Jeffrey
Guest
- Status