tawn
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,311
May 1st Planned City Shutdowns...
- Thread starter tawn
- Start date
- Status
tawn
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,311
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
That is incorrect.
"Only two percent of the arriving immigrants were excluded from entry. The two main reasons why an immigrant would be excluded were if a doctor diagnosed that the immigrant had a contagious disease that would endanger the public health or if a legal inspector thought the immigrant was likely to become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer."
Ellis Island and the History of Immigration
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
Deb:
What is incorrect. In fact - I''d say you just made my point:
There was in fact a screening process; people were sent back, and guess what the rejection criteria was:
"The two main reasons why an immigrant would be excluded were if a doctor diagnosed that the immigrant had a contagious disease that would endanger the public health or if a legal inspector thought the immigrant was likely to become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer."
I welcome any and all people who cross our borders to submit to those standard up fronts: I suspect that many others in this debate would also welcome that these standards be applied to everyone who snuck in illegally.
No more mom''s sneaking across the border to have the U.S. pay for a childbirth so the child is a US citizen ("become a public charge").
No more illegal workers ("an illegal contgract laborer").
Only a fraction of people who need public assistance and other services in certain many parts of the country ("become a public charge").
Wow. What a concept.
Have you reviewed the current immigration standards? Seems to me that they are fairly close to the same standards as back then. The US does not allow full unrestricted immegration in order to ensure that immigrants become healthy and productive members of the US socitety - rejecting those who would be a health burden and who are likely to place a financial burden on communities by requiring public assistance of some sort.
Perry
What is incorrect. In fact - I''d say you just made my point:
There was in fact a screening process; people were sent back, and guess what the rejection criteria was:
"The two main reasons why an immigrant would be excluded were if a doctor diagnosed that the immigrant had a contagious disease that would endanger the public health or if a legal inspector thought the immigrant was likely to become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer."
I welcome any and all people who cross our borders to submit to those standard up fronts: I suspect that many others in this debate would also welcome that these standards be applied to everyone who snuck in illegally.
No more mom''s sneaking across the border to have the U.S. pay for a childbirth so the child is a US citizen ("become a public charge").
No more illegal workers ("an illegal contgract laborer").
Only a fraction of people who need public assistance and other services in certain many parts of the country ("become a public charge").
Wow. What a concept.
Have you reviewed the current immigration standards? Seems to me that they are fairly close to the same standards as back then. The US does not allow full unrestricted immegration in order to ensure that immigrants become healthy and productive members of the US socitety - rejecting those who would be a health burden and who are likely to place a financial burden on communities by requiring public assistance of some sort.
Perry
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Anyone could arrive at Ellis Island, Perry. All he had to do was to pay for his passage. Once there, only the sick and those thought likely to become a public charge were sent home. That was 2% of everyone who made it to Ellis Island! That is a looooong stretch from today's system! Almost all the illegal immigrants here in the US today would have made it through the screening and into the country legally via Ellis Island when my great grandfather came over!
This is what happened to the old system under which millions of immigrants entered the US.
"From the very beginning of the mass migration that spanned the years (roughly) 1880 to 1924, an increasingly vociferous group of politicians and nativists demanded increased restrictions on immigration. Laws and regulations such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Alien Contract Labor Law and the institution of a literacy test barely stemmed this flood tide of new immigrants. Actually, the death knell for Ellis Island, as a major entry point for new immigrants, began to toll in 1921. It reached a crescendo between 1921 with the passage of the Quota Laws and 1924 with the passage of the National Origins Act. These restrictions were based upon a percentage system according to the number of ethnic groups already living in the United States as per the 1890 and 1910 Census. It was an attempt to preserve the ethnic flavor of the "old immigrants", those earlier settlers primarily from Northern and Western Europe. The perception existed that the newly arriving immigrants mostly from southern and eastern Europe were somehow inferior to those who arrived earlier."
My family came before 1921-in the nineteenth century-so they were not subject to any of these new quotas. They just had to work to pay for their tickets (which they did), bringing over more and more family members as they earned enough for the passage of each one.
That is, in my opinion, the right way to go: back to our roots, taking in the huddled masses.
This is what happened to the old system under which millions of immigrants entered the US.
"From the very beginning of the mass migration that spanned the years (roughly) 1880 to 1924, an increasingly vociferous group of politicians and nativists demanded increased restrictions on immigration. Laws and regulations such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Alien Contract Labor Law and the institution of a literacy test barely stemmed this flood tide of new immigrants. Actually, the death knell for Ellis Island, as a major entry point for new immigrants, began to toll in 1921. It reached a crescendo between 1921 with the passage of the Quota Laws and 1924 with the passage of the National Origins Act. These restrictions were based upon a percentage system according to the number of ethnic groups already living in the United States as per the 1890 and 1910 Census. It was an attempt to preserve the ethnic flavor of the "old immigrants", those earlier settlers primarily from Northern and Western Europe. The perception existed that the newly arriving immigrants mostly from southern and eastern Europe were somehow inferior to those who arrived earlier."
My family came before 1921-in the nineteenth century-so they were not subject to any of these new quotas. They just had to work to pay for their tickets (which they did), bringing over more and more family members as they earned enough for the passage of each one.
That is, in my opinion, the right way to go: back to our roots, taking in the huddled masses.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
Deb:
I suggest you also look at the pattern of the US population expansion across america.
What really endid the mass immegration was the fact that most productive land was in fact settled by the early 1920's. The US could not absorbe an unending flow of people into its economy past that point.
If you want to see a general flow of people into and across the US look at the stathood dates.
www.50states.com/statehood.htm
With the exception of the original 13 colonies: most people populated a state to its capacity of the day (largly agricultural societies) between the period of 25 years prior to statehood and 25 years after statehood.
Not many new states could absorb more people after roughly 25 years after statehood. Only the later large industrial production centers could do that.
That is a significant change from prior to that. Something you really can't ingore in any fair analysis of the situation.
That is the real basis of the reason for the quota laws. Exactly how the quotas were determined would have been irrelevent to the fact that the country woke up to the fact that it needed quotas once the states were largly populated by immigrants (and the native american indians largly killed off).
With those quota laws the US became the world leader in industrial production and lifestyle - because our population was limited to what the country could realistically support.
The US, nor any other populated country - does not have "unlimited" capacity to absorb other people.
However, the US is a very generous country in the world and freely accepts large masses of legal immigrants each year - more than anyone else in the world - more than any other contenant in the world (excluding North America where the US is).
If there are real labor shortages in the US - the immigration policy would change to allow more immigration (and perhaps it should).
However, that does not change the fact that there has been a huge shift from the days of unlimited immegration because the "vacant" land of the Mid-west, central US, or West could be filled up.
There is nothing really wrong with the current immegration policy - and a lot right with it: especially when you compare it to how the rest of the world works. Could it use some fine tuning here and there - yes. Should that mean that we should accept massive illegle immigration. No.
I propose a simple example of the differnces: Let say that you are concerned enough about the issue to open your house to people from the 3rd world who wants to come to your area and build a life. Would you limit it to just an individual or perhaps a family where you can afford to support them without a major affect on your personal standard of living; or would you be willing to just say "I'll take in and support as many who want to come - and never reject more" where you would be driven into a very low standard of living and probably bankruptcy.
Its really the same issue:
I welcome all immigrants who come here legally. The US is currently accepting an average of just below a million people a year (last seveal years). If the US can support more - I have no problem with that. Just do it legally. That is how - as a country - we maintain our national standard of living (not that we're doing so hot at that now...).
Perry
I suggest you also look at the pattern of the US population expansion across america.
What really endid the mass immegration was the fact that most productive land was in fact settled by the early 1920's. The US could not absorbe an unending flow of people into its economy past that point.
If you want to see a general flow of people into and across the US look at the stathood dates.
www.50states.com/statehood.htm
With the exception of the original 13 colonies: most people populated a state to its capacity of the day (largly agricultural societies) between the period of 25 years prior to statehood and 25 years after statehood.
Not many new states could absorb more people after roughly 25 years after statehood. Only the later large industrial production centers could do that.
That is a significant change from prior to that. Something you really can't ingore in any fair analysis of the situation.
That is the real basis of the reason for the quota laws. Exactly how the quotas were determined would have been irrelevent to the fact that the country woke up to the fact that it needed quotas once the states were largly populated by immigrants (and the native american indians largly killed off).
With those quota laws the US became the world leader in industrial production and lifestyle - because our population was limited to what the country could realistically support.
The US, nor any other populated country - does not have "unlimited" capacity to absorb other people.
However, the US is a very generous country in the world and freely accepts large masses of legal immigrants each year - more than anyone else in the world - more than any other contenant in the world (excluding North America where the US is).
If there are real labor shortages in the US - the immigration policy would change to allow more immigration (and perhaps it should).
However, that does not change the fact that there has been a huge shift from the days of unlimited immegration because the "vacant" land of the Mid-west, central US, or West could be filled up.
There is nothing really wrong with the current immegration policy - and a lot right with it: especially when you compare it to how the rest of the world works. Could it use some fine tuning here and there - yes. Should that mean that we should accept massive illegle immigration. No.
I propose a simple example of the differnces: Let say that you are concerned enough about the issue to open your house to people from the 3rd world who wants to come to your area and build a life. Would you limit it to just an individual or perhaps a family where you can afford to support them without a major affect on your personal standard of living; or would you be willing to just say "I'll take in and support as many who want to come - and never reject more" where you would be driven into a very low standard of living and probably bankruptcy.
Its really the same issue:
I welcome all immigrants who come here legally. The US is currently accepting an average of just below a million people a year (last seveal years). If the US can support more - I have no problem with that. Just do it legally. That is how - as a country - we maintain our national standard of living (not that we're doing so hot at that now...).
Perry
LAJennifer
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,031
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Perry,
If you have been following my argument, you should know that I am not pre-occupied with illegal immigrants. I have not been arguing that they should all be given legal status or that they should be thrown out.
I have been arguing that there is a great deal wrong with current immigration policy. I think it needs a massive overhaul with a return to our roots of acceptance, not merely "fine tuning". I find the quota system offensive. Extremely offensive.
I also disagree with you about whether this country can absorb more immigrants. We can. Immigrants tend to be hardworking in the extreme. And, as one of my former teachers used to say ad nauseum, "wealth is productivity".
I think this point can be argued in today''s global economic world. One of the critiicisms of today''s school system is the sideline encouragement of lack of creativity. In other words - I''m not so sure that invention/technology/forward thinking/etc. may supercede productivity in today''s world.Date: 5/13/2006 6:25:24 AM
Author: AGBF
And, as one of my former teachers used to say ad nauseum, ''wealth is productivity''.
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
we as a nation must look at the causes if we really want to effect change. its easy to say its mexico''s problem. if this nation were really concerned about reducing and/or eliminating illegal immigration, we''d be doing other things besides building fences. it is not a black and white issue but with many areas of grey. to break the cycle we have got to admit our part in the problem and then change our behavior. as far as i know, Perry is the only one who read the article i provided earlier in the thread. if you read that article and still see this as simply right and wrong....and we do no wrong [hello, who''s employing these people?!]....then we''ve got bigger problems on the way. it is not a question of right v. wrong but how do we really effect change.
movie zombie
movie zombie
tawn
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,311
I read it too!
Change is never simple, and each solution always seems to unveil a new slew of problems...you can''t please everyone all of the time! Someome is always bound to be p*ssed off!
The Minutemen have been getting on the news here every night...and seem to really be making a big stir here in SD! I haven''t finished checking the whole site out...and it''s not my personal opinion, but thought you guys (especially those in So Cal) might find it interesting!
MINE!!
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,287
I am sorry about resurrecting this thread. but it in it I mentioned that Illegals are getting governement and state help without legal status. Someone asked me about it and where...
I got this from an article about Colorado found on yahoo. They are now trying to pass laws that make people PROVE their status and provide documentation because this was not required before in order to get govt. assistance.
The quote:
"It would deny most non-emergency state benefits to illegal immigrants 18 years old and older — forcing people to prove legal residency when applying for benefits or renewing their eligibility."
Hmmm... why wasn''t this in placec before?
I got this from an article about Colorado found on yahoo. They are now trying to pass laws that make people PROVE their status and provide documentation because this was not required before in order to get govt. assistance.
The quote:
"It would deny most non-emergency state benefits to illegal immigrants 18 years old and older — forcing people to prove legal residency when applying for benefits or renewing their eligibility."
Hmmm... why wasn''t this in placec before?
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
because Americans like helping people.
We just have been pushed too far, we have too many of our own to take care of to take care of the world.
imho we should end all foreign aid until everyone at home is taken care of and make legal immegration easier for those that wish to make a better life and not be leaches, we have too many leaches the way it is.
MINE!!
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,287
galeteia
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,794
What an interesting thread...
As a woman in love with a US citizen and facing the mountain of paperwork and hidden costs involved, I've been paying a lot more attention to immigration issues in the US than I used to.
The feeling I get, and I could be totally misreading this, is that the immigration situation in the US is coming to a head. Post 9/11, the attitude behind the immigration hoops has changed, which I can completely understand. I despair sometimes, because as a Canadian, I naively thought there would be less objection to me than from a country on the 'hot list'; I am educated, a native english speaker, and a North American. I discovered that doesn't really matter. What does matter is how much money I have, and how good I am at reading the fine print. While I appreciate the concern about bringing people into the US who can't support themselves, I think that an immigrant's earning potential should be considered, rather than just how much $$ they have (or don't have) BEFORE they immigrate. In my case, I speak the language, my education and marks show me to be intelligent, and there is no reason why I cannot become an enonomic asset to the country. I don't mean to sound arrogant or pompous, but I do find it a little strange that education is not considered an asset. I have read stories of qualified Medical Doctors from India who are fluent in english working as waitresses and cab drivers because the the US does not value their education or skills.
But it seems I can't go there unless I have a few thousand dollars burning a hole in my pocket. I can't imagine how people from poor countries are managing this.
I might get flamed for this, but I do feel that 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' when it comes to language and obeying the laws and cultural norms. If I was to move to a non-english-speaking country, say, Sweden... of course I would devote myself to learning Swedish before I went. I would study their laws, and get a sense of their culture. If I immigrate somewhere, I should expect to become part of their society, not demand that the society make allowances and alter for my sake. How can I become an asset to their economy if I can't speak Swedish?
The recent thread about debt and credit card companies made me see the paralell-- it was suggested that interest charged on debt is so high because they have to cover the loss of defaulted loans, making it more expensive for everyone. I suspect that illegal immigration makes it harder for those of us who are trying to legally immigrate.
Just my thoughts on immigration, as a future immigrant. I hope I didn't offend anyone.
As a woman in love with a US citizen and facing the mountain of paperwork and hidden costs involved, I've been paying a lot more attention to immigration issues in the US than I used to.
The feeling I get, and I could be totally misreading this, is that the immigration situation in the US is coming to a head. Post 9/11, the attitude behind the immigration hoops has changed, which I can completely understand. I despair sometimes, because as a Canadian, I naively thought there would be less objection to me than from a country on the 'hot list'; I am educated, a native english speaker, and a North American. I discovered that doesn't really matter. What does matter is how much money I have, and how good I am at reading the fine print. While I appreciate the concern about bringing people into the US who can't support themselves, I think that an immigrant's earning potential should be considered, rather than just how much $$ they have (or don't have) BEFORE they immigrate. In my case, I speak the language, my education and marks show me to be intelligent, and there is no reason why I cannot become an enonomic asset to the country. I don't mean to sound arrogant or pompous, but I do find it a little strange that education is not considered an asset. I have read stories of qualified Medical Doctors from India who are fluent in english working as waitresses and cab drivers because the the US does not value their education or skills.
But it seems I can't go there unless I have a few thousand dollars burning a hole in my pocket. I can't imagine how people from poor countries are managing this.
I might get flamed for this, but I do feel that 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' when it comes to language and obeying the laws and cultural norms. If I was to move to a non-english-speaking country, say, Sweden... of course I would devote myself to learning Swedish before I went. I would study their laws, and get a sense of their culture. If I immigrate somewhere, I should expect to become part of their society, not demand that the society make allowances and alter for my sake. How can I become an asset to their economy if I can't speak Swedish?
The recent thread about debt and credit card companies made me see the paralell-- it was suggested that interest charged on debt is so high because they have to cover the loss of defaulted loans, making it more expensive for everyone. I suspect that illegal immigration makes it harder for those of us who are trying to legally immigrate.
Just my thoughts on immigration, as a future immigrant. I hope I didn't offend anyone.
MINE!!
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,287
No offense from me.. but then again.. I am not quite the bleeding heart type.
Good Luck on your immigration. DH is also Canadian and we are going through the process now. It is a struggle, but it weeds out those that really want to be here and have something to contribute. We have enough slackers and people that just take up space here with just the native born.
My DH thinks much the same as you do. He thinks someone should use the language, respect the law (including!!!!! the laws on LEGAL immigration) and contribute significantly to the country he is trying to immigrate to. He also beleives that he is a guest here and the LAST thing he has the right to do is DEMAND that laws be changed in order to satisfy him....
Good Luck on your immigration. DH is also Canadian and we are going through the process now. It is a struggle, but it weeds out those that really want to be here and have something to contribute. We have enough slackers and people that just take up space here with just the native born.
My DH thinks much the same as you do. He thinks someone should use the language, respect the law (including!!!!! the laws on LEGAL immigration) and contribute significantly to the country he is trying to immigrate to. He also beleives that he is a guest here and the LAST thing he has the right to do is DEMAND that laws be changed in order to satisfy him....
LAJennifer
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,031
Some might find this article of interest -
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-quadruplets28jul28,0,931508.story?coll=la-home-headlines
It highlights an illegal family in Los Angeles.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-quadruplets28jul28,0,931508.story?coll=la-home-headlines
It highlights an illegal family in Los Angeles.
MINE!!
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,287
LAJennifer
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,031
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
so?! how about how our taxpayer dollars used here for farm subsidy in the US [its callead unfair competition and the EU is taking us to task for it but for some reason Mexico isn''t] and then those crops dumped into Mexico which means Mexican farmers there can''t get a fair price? said farmers then can''t make a living and have no choice but to try and find a way to feed themselves. so they come here. fix the system where it starts: stop the farm subsidy here so farmers there can still make a living and more importantly stay in Mexico, prosecute US corporations for hiring illegals [who if they couldn''t get work wouldn''t be here but in Mexico] and set up programs with our neighbor south of the border to help their economy and keep them there. but no, we finance a super highway in the US so more can come in and take more jobs; see: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=105894
personally, i can''t get upset about this family as i''m more upset about our tax dollars used to kill innocents via arms sales, our tax dollars used to bolster dictators, Halliburton''s inability to account for the US tax dollars it receives, etc. so i guess we all have something we''d rather see our tax dollars being used for.
movie zombie
personally, i can''t get upset about this family as i''m more upset about our tax dollars used to kill innocents via arms sales, our tax dollars used to bolster dictators, Halliburton''s inability to account for the US tax dollars it receives, etc. so i guess we all have something we''d rather see our tax dollars being used for.
movie zombie
- Status
Engagement Ring Trends 2025: Styles Set to Shine
Engagement Ring Trends 2025: Styles Set to Shine - 01/15
300x240.png)