As for the debate on immigration, I do think there is a lot of inherent racism (or at the very least, an elite country-club mentality).

As someone who supports freedom, democracy, liberty and all that good stuff, it’s hard to deny people the right to move.

In a world where corporations can easily move their busineses from country to country seeking the cheapest labor, why is labor not afforded the same right?

Laws concerning immigration and naturalization

Prior to 1790 – If you were here (but not native) and said you were an American… you were an American.

1790 to 1882 – Immigration required getting to the United States… period. Naturalization required you be a “free white person” of “good moral character” who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year.

1882 – Congress passed the “Chinese Exclusion Act”. This act was the first significant restriction on free immigration in U.S. history, and it excluded Chinese laborers from the country under penalty of imprisonment and deportation. It also – a) levied a 50 cents tax on all aliens landing at United States ports; and, b) gave authorities the power to deny entry to “convicts (except those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges”.

1921 Congress passed the “Emergency Quota Act” it was the first law to set quotas on the number of immigrants permitted to enter the country. It provided – a) Immigration from a specific nation was limited to three percent of that nation’s population living in the United States, as reported in the 1910 Federal Census; and, b) An overall maximum annual quota of 357,000 immigrants.

Life’s easier when you look at the facts.

Didn’t the Wall Street Journal have almost the exact same editorial?

The Wall Street Journal, a conservative Northeast establishmentarian newspaper of high quality, is in love with the business community. For ages it has advocated a Constitutional amendment:

“There shall be open borders”

> > broad generalizations

> should be able to
> determine from the context

I was out for a while taking care of other matters but it also gave me time to rethink things. You are not the first to accuse me of over-generalizing. Now in the past I’ve been touchy about this because the other person has been wrong, detached from much of the real world — attacking common figures of speech or references about 85-99+ per cent of certain groups of individuals on an almost ridiculously legalistic basis because at least one (1) individual possibly may not be so characterized.

But there is also the problem of inability to grasp what is being stated from the context, if the context itself is unclear. I apologize if you have faced readin’ writin’ that’s written rotten.

http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=Johnnie%20Frazier

It is second on the Google news listing on the subject.

I have to wonder why this post was deleted.

Now, I know enough people who oppose this immigration bill, and, although I am sure that quite some who oppose the bill are borderline racists, the people I know, are definitely not racists. To them, it is not a matter of race, but of the rule of law.

Michael,

Racist may be a little harsh but it’s the first word that comes to mind. (“Status-quoist” would probably be a more accurate word if such a word exists.) And, IMO, the ‘rule of law’ argument is just a convenient excuse.

But whether it’s ‘racist’ or ‘status-quoist’ is not the point… The point is that throughout U.S. history it’s been proven to be non-productive, wrongheaded thinking.

Every time a new ‘different people’ arrives in the United States the reaction has been what we’re seeing now… time passes, things got better and ‘those people’ became part of ‘us’. Africans, Chinese, Italians, Irish… Michael you’d just love the ‘Dutch Jokes’ that circulated in Michigan (in the ‘50s) because there was a large, productive Dutch community there.

The volume of the ’anti-immigration movement’ is increasingly loud and frantic because those involved in it that pay attention to history know that their position is wrong while wanting so desperately to be right.

That said, xenophobia and fear of being “Latinized” are a significant portion of opposition to this bill, more than many wish to admit. There have been comments even on our little “moderate” board which worry about the U.S. becoming a 3rd world nation, that the English language will die, etc.

The bill as you say is complicated but coverage of it was more emotional than informative-as many hot button issues have become today. This makes finding any kind of solution impossible.

All that was EVER going to do is harden opposition against it.

broad generalizations … “the Left”

You should be able to determine from the context whom I am identifying when I use the words “the Left” or “the Usual Suspects.”

DLS though we agree in many ways about immigration, me thinks you are not one to condemn broad generalizations, since they are something you indulge in almost daily with those you call “the Left”.