4 ms·

> In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. That is inco

> In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. That is incorrect. Before the Hart-Celler act in 1965, immigration was restricted to European countries with a quota system based on national origin. We even had health checks and required residency of up to 14 years before citizenship was granted (changed to 5 years with the Naturalization Law of 1802). Up until the 1960's, America was about 90% white, so 1800's to early 1900's immigration law has very little to do with "what it is" today.

conanbatt 9y ago
This is an interesting data point! It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. The original law had no quotas for latin american or bilateral countries or professionals. This would imply that it wasnt the raise of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration, historically. I should devote more time to studying the american history of immigration to support claims like the one I said.
- slang800 9y ago
  > It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. Yeah, the Emergency Quota Act in 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924 introduced the quota system. However, laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 responded demographic changes well before a formal quota system. And, of course, citizenship was restricted to free white people of good character, until the Naturalization Act of 1870 and the 14th amendment in 1868. So, without a welfare system or possibility of citizenship there was little incentive for non-whites to try to come to America. > This would imply that it wasn't the [rise] of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration It certainly wasn't only welfare. We had immigration and citizenship laws well before the start of a welfare system in the 1930's. For example, early Chinese immigration was driven by low-skill railway construction and mining jobs. So their exclusion was because they drove down wages and were culturally incompatible. I would say that immigration law has become significantly more complicated as it is opened up to as many people as possible. However, I don't think it gets more restrictive than "free white people of good character"... If that rule were applied today, less than a tenth of the world population would be eligible.

conanbatt 9y ago

This is an interesting data point! It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. The original law had no quotas for latin american or bilateral countries or professionals. This would imply that it wasnt the raise of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration, historically. I should devote more time to studying the american history of immigration to support claims like the one I said.

slang800 9y ago
> It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. Yeah, the Emergency Quota Act in 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924 introduced the quota system. However, laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 responded demographic changes well before a formal quota system. And, of course, citizenship was restricted to free white people of good character, until the Naturalization Act of 1870 and the 14th amendment in 1868. So, without a welfare system or possibility of citizenship there was little incentive for non-whites to try to come to America. > This would imply that it wasn't the [rise] of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration It certainly wasn't only welfare. We had immigration and citizenship laws well before the start of a welfare system in the 1930's. For example, early Chinese immigration was driven by low-skill railway construction and mining jobs. So their exclusion was because they drove down wages and were culturally incompatible. I would say that immigration law has become significantly more complicated as it is opened up to as many people as possible. However, I don't think it gets more restrictive than "free white people of good character"... If that rule were applied today, less than a tenth of the world population would be eligible.