Let us never repeat the stupidity of 1924

[Politruk]

A lot of RWs lately, including some on the PB, seem to be echoing Tucker Carlson's pernicious racist nonsense about liberal immigration policy being intended to replace the existing American population with one more amenable to state control. It is one of the more laughable iterations of the Great Replacement theory. (See also white genocide.)

I hope we all can agree, by now, that the Immigration Act of 1924, expressly crafted to bar out all but northern Europeans, was a national disgrace.

And the reasoning behind it, if that is not too strong a word, was that other immigrants could not internalize American -- essentially Anglo-Saxon -- republican values and institutions.

Let us not ever again allow that kind of stupid thinking to play a role in American immigration policy. That national-origins-quota system was abolished by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and the immigrants who have come in since then have formed no danger to the republic -- though Tucker Carlson seems to think so and has expressly condemned the 1965 act.

This silliness calls to mind the anti-Catholic conspiracy theories of the 19th Century. The idea was that the Pope was -- somehow -- causing the mass emigration of Catholics to the U.S., and the goal was to subvert American democracy and create a monarchy under a Catholic prince. A lot of Americans believed this -- Samuel Morse, inventor of the electric telegraph, wrote a book about it -- but we all now can see it clearly for the nonsense it was. And our descendants will take the same view of Tucker Carlson's Great Replacement.

 

[AceDesSpades]

We wil not.

When they say history repeats, they mean in broader terms.

 

[AceDesSpades]

In a chaotic formulation, if you cannot recreate the initial state, you will never achieve the same result.

 

[Politruk]

We wil not.

When they say history repeats, they mean in broader terms.

Let's not rhyme it, if you prefer.

 

[AceDesSpades]

point conceded

thread dead

 

[Politruk]

thread dead

Would we could say that of the anti-immigrationists.

 

[AceDesSpades]

if wishes...

 

[Politruk]

xxxx

 

[Saint_Ann]

Let's get back to stupidity of the 1880's.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

 

[Politruk]

Let's get back to stupidity of the 1880's.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Those were acceptable because they were white. In the same period, the very first immigration-control legislation in American history was enacted -- the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

 

[Politruk]

Bringing that up to date, it is obvious immigration would not now be a hot-button issue if the immigration pressure were coming from Canada instead of Mexico.

And that is not because Canadians speak English.

 

[Politruk]

xxxx

 

[Politruk]

See here.

 

[UltraChad]

A lot of RWs lately, including some on the PB, seem to be echoing Tucker Carlson's pernicious racist nonsense about liberal immigration policy being intended to replace the existing American population with one more amenable to state control. It is one of the more laughable iterations of the Great Replacement theory.

It's not really a theory, you guys are just doing it in the open.

 

[UltraChad]

Those were acceptable because they were white. In the same period, the very first immigration-control legislation in American history was enacted -- the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

They also weren't being treated better than the citizenry and being showered in cash and prizes.

Shit can the entire welfare state...all of it, and we can have a "Sign in at the door." open migration again. I think that's a compromise most of the right wing would get on board with.

 

[Politruk]

They also weren't being treated better than the citizenry and being showered in cash and prizes.

Immigrants now are not either.

 

[Politruk]

Shit can the entire welfare state..

That mostly happened in the Clinton Admin.

 

[Politruk]

It's not really a theory, you guys are just doing it in the open.

There is no reason to expect immigrants to be more amenable to state control.

 

[UltraChad]

Immigrants now are not either.

Yes they are.....it got so obvious and in everyone's face it moved the whole nation right.

That mostly happened in the Clinton Admin.

One of your more delusional takes.

There is no reason to expect immigrants to be more amenable to state control.

Of course there is, they're state dependent.

 

[Politruk]

Of course there is, they're state dependent.

No one in any Latin American country but Cuba is in the habit of relying on the state. Not even Venezuela.

 

[Politruk]

One of your more delusional takes.

Clinton welfare reform. Nobody migrates to the U.S. for welfare.

 

[Politruk]

Yes they are.....it got so obvious and in everyone's face it moved the whole nation right.

Nobody voted Republican because immigrants are being showered with cash.

 

[UltraChad]

No one in any Latin American country but Cuba is in the habit of relying on the state. Not even Venezuela.

Bullshit and if that's the case then they don't need any of that emergency funding to take care of all the illegals that (D)'s let in then do they??

Oh wait they NEED that money!!! LOL

Clinton welfare reform.

Was not shit canning the entire welfare state. You fucking retard.

Nobody migrates to the U.S. for welfare.

That's not what they or the Democrats are saying.

Nobody voted Republican because immigrants are being showered with cash.

LOL keep telling yourself that

 

[Politruk]

That's not what they or the Democrats are saying.

No immigrant and no Democrat is saying immigrants come here for welfare.

They don't.

"Immigrants come here to get 'welfare'"[edit]​

• Latin American immigrant labor-force participation is close to or higher than the American average.[3]
• Immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S., unless the “study” was undertaken by an anti-immigrant group. One study estimates that immigrants earn nearly $240 billion a year. Studies find that immigrant tax payments total $20 to $85 billion more than the amount of government services they use.[9]
• Since the welfare reform of 1996, when limits were implemented cutting off benefits to two years consecutively or five years cumulatively, this is a bogus accusation.[10]
• To immigrate into the US, you must have a sponsor (generally the family member, such as the spouse, bringing you into the country) who will testify, and provide proof, that he or she has enough money to support you, if you are unable to support yourself, or if you lose your job.[11] This means that until you naturalize as a U.S. citizen or have been a taxpayer for 10 years, your sponsor's income will be taken into consideration in deciding whether you are poor enough to qualify for means-tested benefits, and that if you do take those benefits, the government can sue your sponsor to recover those costs. You can also sue your sponsor if they fail to support you at the poverty level.
• Libertarian economist Milton Friedman once said that you can't simultaneously support the welfare state and free immigration. The reason, according to him, was the fact that the access to generous social welfare provisions will likely attract more destitute migrants, which then places a significant fiscal burden on the host country.[12][note 1] Immigrants, however, use less, and not more social benefits than native Americans. In 2016, the American government spent more than $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, whic is approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays. Immigrants, however, consumed 21 percent less welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans on a per capita basis on that year.[14]

 

[Politruk]

Bullshit and if that's the case then they don't need any of that emergency funding to take care of all the illegals that (D)'s let in then do they??

There are no "illegals that the (D)'s let in."