2016 Election

Quote: SanchoPanza

The big difference is that the vast preponderance of those immigrants were legal and made lifelong commitments to be Americans in the U.S.

This is because legal immigration was significantly easier than. I've already mentioned several times how it is basically impossible to legally immigrate to the US now unless you have family members here and even with family members if they are not immediate family it is a significant amount of difficulty.

Saying they came here legally when there were very few if any laws concerning immigration isn't really very meaningful.

Quote: Twirdman

Not really. You act like all previous generations immediately integrated into American culture this is patently absurd. Have you never heard of Little Italy, Little China, Little Korea town and all the other basically segregated cities that new immigrants migrate to. Also how many large waves of immigration were you actually alive to see? I mean if you are in your 40s you might have been alive for the large Indochinna immigration after Vietnam, but other than that not really many large scale immigration have been in your lifetime.

They do not compare. The number of people involved is tiny compared to the number of illegal aliens entering from Mexico today. Yes, I heard of Little Italy, Little Havana, and others. Again it does not compare. 100 years ago were Americans asked not to show USA patriotism on May 5th so as not to "offend" the newcomers? That is happening today.

To repeat, no previous group could return home and come back with a simple bus ticket. No previous group sent billions of dollars out of the USA back home. No group prior to 1965 had the welfare state handouts we have today. All prior groups came LEGALLY.

Culture clash is coming to the USA. It will not be pretty. OTOH we may get lucky and California asks to leave the union.

Quote: Twirdman

This is because legal immigration was significantly easier than. I've already mentioned several times how it is basically impossible to legally immigrate to the US now unless you have family members here and even with family members if they are not immediate family it is a significant amount of difficulty.

Saying they came here legally when there were very few if any laws concerning immigration isn't really very meaningful.

So what? It was a different time then. Today we have different needs. Back then there was a labor shortage and plenty of lands that needed settled. Today this is not so. It used to be that an American could walk right up to the front door of the White House.

Heroin was once legal, as was cocaine.

Times change.

I'd classify myself as socially liberal but fiscally conservative. You can say the immigration laws are too restrictive if you want, but I'm sorry, whether or not something, anything, is done legally or illegally is relevant and an important distinction. If not then what are laws for?

Quote: Twirdman

This is because legal immigration was significantly easier than.

Lawlessness is being endorsed when laws that one does not like are on the books and people decide that they will not follow them. In that event, there is no good reason to stop with the immigration and naturalization laws. I would like to ignore some laws, too. Let's start with motor vehicle statutes.

Quote: SanchoPanza

...I would like to ignore some laws, too. Let's start with motor vehicle statutes.

The extortion of paying taxes is second on that list.

Quote: SanchoPanza

I would like to ignore some laws, too. Let's start with motor vehicle statutes.

Maybe use my backyard to grow something other than Silver Queen for resale?

If the Obama administration does not love illegal immigration, why do they stop immigration enforcement?

Quote: AZDuffman

If the Obama administration does not love illegal immigration, why do they stop immigration enforcement?

Washington Times is shit, but other than that forcing the use of interpreters is not the same things as stopping the enforcement of immigration laws. There are people here legally who do not speak English or at least do not speak English well. To guarantee they get fair treatment and know their rights we need to have interpreters.

Obama has moved more immigration enforcement towards the federal rather than local law enforcement but the laws are still being enforced.

Quote: Twirdman

Quote: AZDuffman

If the Obama administration does not love illegal immigration, why do they stop immigration enforcement?

Washington Times is shit, but other than that forcing the use of interpreters is not the same things as stopping the enforcement of immigration laws. There are people here legally who do not speak English or at least do not speak English well. To guarantee they get fair treatment and know their rights we need to have interpreters.

Obama has moved more immigration enforcement towards the federal rather than local law enforcement but the laws are still being enforced.

Read the entire article and if you must google more of how Obama has stopped Maricopa County from enforcing immigration laws. Their actions against the county are as if they said, "Stop arresting people for selling meth and let us handle it. Sorry, but we do not care about the quality of life of your citizens."

By the number of illegals in the USA, the laws are anything but being enforced.

Glad the parties have switched sides.

Quote:

American objections to Chinese immigration took many forms, and generally stemmed from economic and cultural tensions, as well as ethnic discrimination. ]Most Chinese laborers who came to the United States did so in order to send money back to China to support their families there. At the same time, they also had to repay loans to the Chinese merchants who paid their passage to America. These financial pressures left them little choice but to work for whatever wages they could. Non-Chinese laborers often required much higher wages to support their wives and children in the United States, and also generally had a stronger political standing to bargain for higher wages. Therefore many of the non-Chinese workers in the United States came to resent the Chinese laborers, who might squeeze them out of their jobs. Furthermore, as with most immigrant communities, many Chinese settled in their own neighborhoods, and tales spread of Chinatowns as places where large numbers of Chinese men congregated to visit prostitutes, smoke opium, or gamble. Some advocates of anti-Chinese legislation therefore argued that admitting Chinese into the United States lowered the cultural and moral standards of American society. Others used a more overtly racist argument for limiting immigration from East Asia, and expressed concern about the integrity of American racial composition.

To address these rising social tensions, from the 1850s through the 1870s the California state government passed a series of measures aimed at Chinese residents, ranging from requiring special licenses for Chinese businesses or workers to preventing naturalization. Because anti-Chinese discrimination and efforts to stop Chinese immigration violated the 1868 Burlingame-Seward Treaty with China, the federal government was able to negate much of this legislation.

In 1879, advocates of immigration restriction succeeded in introducing and passing legislation in Congress to limit the number of Chinese arriving to fifteen per ship or vessel. Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes vetoed the bill because it violated U.S. treaty agreements with China. Nevertheless, it was still an important victory for advocates of exclusion. Democrats, led by supporters in the West, advocated for all-out exclusion of Chinese immigrants. Although Republicans were largely sympathetic to western concerns, they were committed to a platform of free immigration. In order to placate the western states without offending China, President Hayes sought a revision of the Burlingame-Seward Treaty in which China agreed to limit immigration to the United States.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration