Baldimo
 
  1  
Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:20 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
1882: The Chinese exclusion law curbed Chinese immigration. Also excluded were persons convicted of political offenses, lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become public charges. The law placed a head tax on each immigrant.


Wrong.

Immigration laws prior to the Chinese exclusion law:

1819
Congress enacted the first significant federal legislation relating specifically to immigration. Among its provisions, it: (1) established the continuing reporting of immigration to the United States; and (2) set specific sustenance rules for passengers of ships leaving U.S. ports for Europe.
1864
Congress first centralized control over immigration under the Secretary of State with a Commissioner. The importation of contract laborers was legalized in this legislation.
1875
Direct federal regulation of immigration was established by a law that prohibited entry of prostitutes and convicts.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:25 am
@Baldimo,
How would any of these prevented your non-Asian ancestor from either coming in a ship or walking across the border with impunity? Basically anyone except the Chinese (with very few restrictions) could come across the border at will.

That is how your ancestors got here.


Baldimo
 
  1  
Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:29 am
@maxdancona,
So are you going to accept that both of your opinions were wrong and that the US did indeed have immigration laws prior to the 1920's?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:57 am
@Baldimo,
I didn't say they didn't have any immigration laws prior to the 1920's. The point is that there was no significant restriction on immigration except keeping out the Chinese before the 1920's. As you point out, in addition to keeping out the Chinese, they also restricted convicts and prostitutes... I will admit to failing to mention this. But before the 1920's the borders were pretty much open to anyone other than the Chinese.

In the 1920's it was realized that keeping out the Chinese wasn't enough. The concern was that the pure Nothern European Protestant stock (i.e. German and English) that was common in the US would be corrupted by inferior Southern European blood (especially Italy).

A primary goal of the 1920's legislation, and this was clearly stated in the congressional debate, was to limit the number of Italians who were coming and diluting noble American bloodlines.
andy31
 
  1  
Sun 13 Sep, 2015 08:18 pm
@maxdancona,
I'm reading your comments with disbelief... frankly some of them are simply shocking. FAIR- hate group?? Seriously?
It is incpmrehencable and scary how many people here are so naive, share complete lack of understanding about today's importance of border security. And let's not talk about century ago. There is entire culture of people hating our guts today, exploring every posibility to come here and destroy us and kill us. It's a reality. How can you possibly ignore that? Was 911 not enough?
Why is it always democrats with short-lived memory? Why anybody here would be for illegal immigration (other than illegal immigrants)?

maxdancona
 
  2  
Sun 13 Sep, 2015 09:39 pm
@andy31,
Let's be honest here Andy. You don't fear the terrorists any more than I do. You understand that 9/11 was their worst, and it was tragic and unforgiveable. but the United States rose above it. We grieved, we adapted, we held to our values. Even with their worst there was not even the slightest possibility that the terrorists would take away our freedoms or our lifestyles. We are far to strong for that.

The immigration debate has nothing to do with this.

Immigration has always been, and it continues to be, an argument about racial and cultural purity in the US. One one side are people who believe that America should be predominantly White and Christian. These are the people who oppose "Black Lives Matter" and cheer Kim Davis in her stand against Gay marriage.

On the other side are those of us who believe that America is about freedom for all regardless of religion, or sexual preference, or color or language. We want a country that is just and free and open to all.

If we are going to have this discussion, let's at least be honest about what is about.

andy31
 
  1  
Sun 13 Sep, 2015 10:59 pm
@maxdancona,
I do appreciate your opinion, and I have nothing against first part of your statement.

However I would respectfully disagree with most of what you said after that. Immigration debate has everything to do with our security, upholding our laws and, yes, preventing another attack. How about depleting our welfare system, education funds, uncontrollable healthcare spending not to mention steeling our jobs and bringing the wages down.
Just oposite to what you said it has NOTHING to do with any racial or cultural purity AT ALL.
We are the most culturally and racially divesified nation on the planet! We have more religions AND more religion freedom here than any other country, and we want to keep it that way. EXACTLY FOR THAT REASON we have to controll our borders and no, we are not, and should not be open to everybody who wants to enter, because if we openly would, there will be more than billion people in short time floading inn and turning this country into muslim nation with Sharia law.

You said that " even with their worst" they couldn't take away our life styles or freedom.
THEY ALREADY DID!!! Aren't you taking your shoes off everytime you fly? Isn't Homeland Security spying on us? On and on...
Yes, they deminished our life styles and freedom... do you want more of it?

Ooh boy... you really have anything good to say about "black life's matter" disturbance group?
You see... to them, only "some" black life's matter.
Specifically blacks killed by white cop. To them NO OTHER life's matter, that's why now even blacks themselves are laughing at them and rejecting them.

You got that right, we want the country just and free but... not open to all. Being "just", also mean to respect all our laws, immigration laws included.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Mon 14 Sep, 2015 01:06 am
@andy31,
You are kind of all over the place there, but let me try to pick this apart.

1) Your concern about "Muslims" coming to impose "Sharia" law seems a bit far fetched. By far the greatest proportion of immigrants right now are Hispanics. They are Catholics. The second greatest number of immigrants are Asian. About 3% of incoming immigrants are Muslim (and very few of them come illegally).

2) Taking my shoes off doesn't seem like a drastic loss of my freedom (although it is annoying). In my opinion it is just security theater... I think it is there to make government officials look good (rather than making us safer). But, either way... it is an inconvenience, nothing else.

I am against government spying. But it is the government's fault.

3) We disagree about the Black Lives Matters movement. But I just brought it up to show the connection between immigration and race. You did confirm my theory. I don't think we will ever agree on the importance of the BLM movement.

4) Under Sharia law Homosexuals would be forbidden by the government from being married. This is the only way that I know of that there is an actual attempt to uphold Sharia law in the US. Kim Davis (who is breaking US law to impose religious law) is being supported by the Christians. This means that the very Conservative Christians who oppose immigration from a fear of Sharia law are the only people who are actually trying to implement Sharia law. I find this a bit humorous.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » illegal immigration
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 03:07:54