|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:35 pm Post subject: US Immigration Act 50 years later |
 |
|
The Immigration Act That Inadvertently Changed America: Fifty years after its passage, it’s clear that the law’s ultimate effects are at odds with its original intent.
| Quote: |
For supporters, the intent of the legislation was to bring immigration policy into line with other anti-discrimination measures, not to fundamentally change the face of the nation. “We have removed all elements of second-class citizenship from our laws by the [1964] Civil Rights Act,” declared Vice President Hubert Humphrey. “We must in 1965 remove all elements in our immigration law which suggest there are second-class people.”
At the signing ceremony on Liberty Island, President Lyndon Johnson said the new law “corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American nation,” but he downplayed its expected effect. “The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” he insisted.
Opponents of the reform proposal had argued that the United States was fundamentally a European country and should stay that way. “The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, [and] the people of Holland,” complained Senator Sam Ervin, a Democrat from North Carolina. “With all due respect to Ethiopia,” Ervin said, “I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.” The critics highlighted population pressures in the developing world and predicted the United States would find itself inundated by desperate migrants from poverty-stricken countries.
Only a few supporters of the 1965 legislation said the country could and should be willing to accommodate more immigrants of color. “The American nation today stands as eloquent proof that there is no inherent contradiction between unity and diversity,” declared Representative Peter Rodino of New Jersey, a Democrat of Italian origin. The more typical response to the nativist arguments was simply to deny that the proposed immigration reform would bring any significant shift in the pattern of immigration. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, testifying in Congress, said he saw no indication of “a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States.”
Such assurances did not sway conservative critics of the reform, but a last-minute change in the legislative language did alleviate their fears of a massive African and Asian influx. The original version of the 1965 Act, cosponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and Representative Emmanuel Celler of New York, both liberal Democrats, favored those immigrants whose skills were “especially advantageous” to the United States. Conservatives, led by Representative Michael Feighan, an Ohio Democrat, managed to change those priorities, giving visa preferences instead to foreigners who were seeking to join their families in the United States. Feighan, who chaired the House Immigration subcommittee, argued that a family-unification preference in immigration law would establish, in the words of a glowing profile in the American Legion magazine, “a naturally operating national-origins system,” because it would favor immigration from the northern and western European countries that at the time dominated the U.S. population.
Feighan and others were wrong. The heightened emphasis on family unification, rather than replicating the existing ethnic structure of the American population, led to the phenomenon of chain migration. The naturalization of a single immigrant from an Asian or African or Hispanic background opened the door to his or her brothers and sisters and their spouses, who in turn could sponsor their own brothers and sisters. Within a few decades, family unification had become the driving force in U.S. immigration, and it favored exactly those nationalities the critics of the 1965 Act had hoped to keep out, because those were the people most determined to move. |
In case you do not like theAtlantic, here is a CIS paper from 1995 on the Immigration Act of 1965. It also has a clear description of the reforms in the Immigration Act of 1965.
| Quote: |
The Hart-Celler Act of 1965:
- Established the basic structure of today's immigration law.
-Abolished the national origins quota system (originally established in 1921 and most recently modified in 1952), while attempting to keep immigration to a manageable level. Family reunification became the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.
-Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from 150,000 to 290,000. Each Eastern-Hemisphere country was allowed an allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere there was no per-country limit. This was the first time any numerical limitation had been placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e., spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling.
-For the first time, gave higher preference to the relatives of American citizens and permanent resident aliens than to applicants with special job skills. The preference system for visa admissions detailed in the law (modified in 1990) was as follows:
-Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.
-Spouses and children and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens.
-Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional ability.
-Married children of U.S. citizens.
-Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens over age twenty-one.
-Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply.
-Refugees given conditional entry or adjustment — chiefly people from Communist countries and the Middle East.
-Applicants not entitled to preceding preferences — i.e., everyone else. |
The CIS paper also has a good list of quotations of supporters assuring those who were skeptical or opposed the measure that it would not change the character of the country. In support of the sincerity of this expressed belief, I submit a quotation from Strom Thurmond.
| Quote: |
Even Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), who voted against the bill out of concern for overpopulation, didn't think the new preference system would mean much of a change:
| Quote: |
| "The preferences which would be established by this proposal are based, I believe, on sound reasoning and meritorious considerations, not entirely dissimilar in effect from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law." (Congressional Record, Sept. 17, 1965, p. 24237.) |
A few of the congressmen who opposed the bill did see that the new system, even with tight labor controls, meant a drastic change. |
The Act has defied these predictions, to be sure. America's ethnic make-up is undergoing a serious, and radical, change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ... Needs to be repealed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an addendum, I am one of those who doesn’t like the Atlantic, so when I clicked on the link, it wasn’t to read the article, it was to read the comments. What we are seeing more and more is that the left is losing control of the narrative as greater amounts of people begin to wake up; as a result, leftist sites have been either regulating comment sections tightly or shutting them down altogether. The demographic situation in the US is so bad now that even SJWs and SWPLs can’t justify the cause and moral signal to each other without realizing that they are actively and obviously promoting policies that seek to displace and marginalize them. Part of the top rated comment from the article:
| Quote: |
The architect of the 1965 Immigration Act was Celler, a New York Socialist Jew who hated the reduction in anti American immigrants and wanted to increase immigration for political and ideological reasons and spent 40 years trying to end the common sense immigration quotas. The wave of immigration between the 1880s and 1920s was only to provide cheap labor for the elites. Once they became scared of the anarchist immigrants they shut off the flow and the immigrants had no option but to assimilate.
Nowadays the elites are open border globalist and do not really care what happens to Americans and want them replaced with immigrants who have no connection to the people and nation and will be easier to lie to and dupe.
they profit from immigration and pass on all the social, economic and environmental costs to the communities. Immigration has become a racket, a transfer of money from labor to capital. Everything the proponents said of the 1965 Immigration Act has turned out to be a lie and the critics were right, just as in the 1986 amnesty.
We are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of citizens betrayed on immigration for decades by the media and both parties who have been bought by the open border globalists and oligarchy. |
Sounds like something I would say. It doesn’t take a genius to sniff out the main group(s) behind the promotion of mass immigration into Western countries, and the 1965 Immigration Act and its resulting effects were no accident. The situation is not one where, suddenly, 50 years later, we say “whoops, how did this happen?” then look around scratching our heads. Or at least it shouldn’t be.
It will get worse if measures aren’t put in place soon to reverse these policies and limit the power of those who push for the Brazilification of the West. I am a one issue voter in this regard. By comparison, most other issues are relatively minor and may not even matter in the long run. Whites are waking up and will continue to wake up if policies that contribute to their demise carry on apace; whether or not they can mobilize, institute systematic reforms, and make the needed changes within themselves, remains to be seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
As an addendum, I am one of those who doesn’t like the Atlantic, so when I clicked on the link, it wasn’t to read the article, it was to read the comments. What we are seeing more and more is that the left is losing control of the narrative as greater amounts of people begin to wake up; as a result, leftist sites have been either regulating comment sections tightly or shutting them down altogether. The demographic situation in the US is so bad now that even SJWs and SWPLs can’t justify the cause and moral signal to each other without realizing that they are actively and obviously promoting policies that seek to displace and marginalize them. Part of the top rated comment from the article:
| Quote: |
The architect of the 1965 Immigration Act was Celler, a New York Socialist Jew who hated the reduction in anti American immigrants and wanted to increase immigration for political and ideological reasons and spent 40 years trying to end the common sense immigration quotas. The wave of immigration between the 1880s and 1920s was only to provide cheap labor for the elites. Once they became scared of the anarchist immigrants they shut off the flow and the immigrants had no option but to assimilate.
Nowadays the elites are open border globalist and do not really care what happens to Americans and want them replaced with immigrants who have no connection to the people and nation and will be easier to lie to and dupe.
they profit from immigration and pass on all the social, economic and environmental costs to the communities. Immigration has become a racket, a transfer of money from labor to capital. Everything the proponents said of the 1965 Immigration Act has turned out to be a lie and the critics were right, just as in the 1986 amnesty.
We are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of citizens betrayed on immigration for decades by the media and both parties who have been bought by the open border globalists and oligarchy. |
Sounds like something I would say. It doesn’t take a genius to sniff out the main group(s) behind the promotion of mass immigration into Western countries, and the 1965 Immigration Act and its resulting effects were no accident. The situation is not one where, suddenly, 50 years later, we say “whoops, how did this happen?” then look around scratching our heads. Or at least it shouldn’t be.
It will get worse if measures aren’t put in place soon to reverse these policies and limit the power of those who push for the Brazilification of the West. I am a one issue voter in this regard. By comparison, most other issues are relatively minor and may not even matter in the long run. Whites are waking up and will continue to wake up if policies that contribute to their demise carry on apace; whether or not they can mobilize, institute systematic reforms, and make the needed changes within themselves, remains to be seen. |
I cannot say that the Left is loosing and people are waking up. I wish I could, but, considering the Right very well may be a controlled opposition as you said, and, to which I can agree, it would seem it is all an act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You might be surprised. The mainstream right is controlled opposition that moves left at a slower pace, but there are burgeoning alternative right wing movements throughout the West that are picking up steam at a rapid pace. Trust in the leftist MSM is low, new media has drastically cut into their market share, and their narrative is far less effective than it used to be. That’s why Trump’s lead has actually grown despite 24/7 attacks from the commie media and shills from both sides and beyond. Lot of Americans are sick of the lies and the never ending flood of brown people. And many of the kids are internet savvy and radical as they come these days, just take a look at 8 chans’ /pol/. That place will let you in on a whole other world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| You might be surprised. The mainstream right is controlled opposition that moves left at a slower pace, but there are burgeoning alternative right wing movements throughout the West that are picking up steam at a rapid pace. Trust in the leftist MSM is low, new media has drastically cut into their market share, and their narrative is far less effective than it used to be. That’s why Trump’s lead has actually grown despite 24/7 attacks from the commie media and shills from both sides and beyond. Lot of Americans are sick of the lies and the never ending flood of brown people. And many of the kids are internet savvy and radical as they come these days, just take a look at 8 chans’ /pol/. That place will let you in on a whole other world. |
I may be surprised, I agree.
I will say this, though. Trump...is dangerous to the United States. Here is why and I will be brief.
1. He wants to accomplish things in a manner that may surpass his authority as president (but that would not be new, just more extensive, aided by a corrupt Congress and Senate).
2. He is preying on the moderate and extreme emotions from the citizenry. We have seen how recent times have shown that example.
3. He goes back-in-the-day with the Clinton's. While it would be interesting to watch The Don go off on HC during a debate, for entertainment value, I find it odd that both he and HC are running against each other...I would not rule out a back alley agreement between the two.
4. He is a model of corporate America. Fascism, after all, is the merger of State and corporate power (basic defenition).
5. Like a very significant amount of others that are running for president, congress, senate, governor...it all seems like a ruse. Things have not been getting better, despite BOTH sides have dominated the House of Represenatives during Obama's term, and Bush's.
I think of how Trump would hold up in a debate against JFK, Ronald Regan, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Ike (currently reading a good book on him), Ross Perot, A. Lincoln, Abigail Adams, FDR, General Washington, Benjamin Rush, Powell...and many others...and I just see Trump as a blubbering bafoon.
6. Would Trump put the U. S. Back on the gold standard? Nope.
7. Would The Don actually uphold the Oath of Office to its pure and full meaning? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
