5 ms·

What were the pre 1960 immigration policies? That was means-tested immigration right? That would align us with most of Europe as far as I can tell.

blackbagboys 9y ago
It was a system of quotas based on national origin, explicitly designed to maintain the "ethnic character" of the country, and either de jure or de facto banned Asian and African immigration.
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  Unless I am very much mistaken no one thought about immigration from Africa at the time because there was a trivial amount. Same reason as there were almost no restrictions on migration within the Western Hemisphere, it didn’t happen much.
- letitgo12345 9y ago
  There is still a quota based on national origin which leads to wait times of up to 70 years for people from India for employment based GCs and up to 130 years in the family based category for people from Mexico. The immigration system is a joke.
- patrickg_zill 9y ago
  This is an accurate statement. The reason why it is still brought up is because Teddy Kennedy and others assured the public that the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act (the real name of the immigration act) would not change the ethnic makeup of the country. Clearly something in the law did change something...
  - blackbagboys 9y ago
    Yes, there are still white supremacists who are angry about non-white people being allowed to live in the country and treated as equal citizens, that is also accurate.
mynameishere 9y ago
Those policies reflected the desires of the population, unlike the current policies which reflect the desires of globalists and corporations.
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  sigh Don't pretend you have "the will of the people" behind you when you lost the popular vote.
  - refurb 9y ago
    sigh Enough will of the people? Don't tell me a simple majority of the popular vote, which in the end means nothing selecting a president, means you can ignore the will of the people that put Trump in power.
    - IIAOPSW 9y ago
      Well if minority rule is cool with you then why don't you just give up and submit to the "globalists" desires. I mean why not? Majorities don't matter when selecting a president right? May as well ignore them.
      - Nrsolis 9y ago
        Something that might take a little explaining: The US system is set up such that each state has a say in how we elect a President. The whole thing is specified by the Constitution. If you subtract out the votes of the people who live in ONLY the major cities like San Francisco and New York, the idea that a majority of people in the US wanted Trump to lose falls away. Another way to look at this is that the people in this country who were being left behind by policies that favored urban areas turned their back on HRC. And then you have the fact that African-Americans in large part didn't come out and vote to support HRC. When you voluntarily enter a race set up according to rules that have existed for a couple of hundred years and lose, you don't get to complain that the rules are unfair.

blackbagboys 9y ago

It was a system of quotas based on national origin, explicitly designed to maintain the "ethnic character" of the country, and either de jure or de facto banned Asian and African immigration.

barry-cotter 9y ago
Unless I am very much mistaken no one thought about immigration from Africa at the time because there was a trivial amount. Same reason as there were almost no restrictions on migration within the Western Hemisphere, it didn’t happen much.
letitgo12345 9y ago
There is still a quota based on national origin which leads to wait times of up to 70 years for people from India for employment based GCs and up to 130 years in the family based category for people from Mexico. The immigration system is a joke.
patrickg_zill 9y ago
This is an accurate statement. The reason why it is still brought up is because Teddy Kennedy and others assured the public that the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act (the real name of the immigration act) would not change the ethnic makeup of the country. Clearly something in the law did change something...
- blackbagboys 9y ago
  Yes, there are still white supremacists who are angry about non-white people being allowed to live in the country and treated as equal citizens, that is also accurate.

mynameishere 9y ago

Those policies reflected the desires of the population, unlike the current policies which reflect the desires of globalists and corporations.

IIAOPSW 9y ago
sigh Don't pretend you have "the will of the people" behind you when you lost the popular vote.
- refurb 9y ago
  sigh Enough will of the people? Don't tell me a simple majority of the popular vote, which in the end means nothing selecting a president, means you can ignore the will of the people that put Trump in power.
  - IIAOPSW 9y ago
    Well if minority rule is cool with you then why don't you just give up and submit to the "globalists" desires. I mean why not? Majorities don't matter when selecting a president right? May as well ignore them.
    - Nrsolis 9y ago
      Something that might take a little explaining: The US system is set up such that each state has a say in how we elect a President. The whole thing is specified by the Constitution. If you subtract out the votes of the people who live in ONLY the major cities like San Francisco and New York, the idea that a majority of people in the US wanted Trump to lose falls away. Another way to look at this is that the people in this country who were being left behind by policies that favored urban areas turned their back on HRC. And then you have the fact that African-Americans in large part didn't come out and vote to support HRC. When you voluntarily enter a race set up according to rules that have existed for a couple of hundred years and lose, you don't get to complain that the rules are unfair.