Skip to comments.(Vanity) A Look Back at Immigration, or Fifty Years of Lies
Posted on 05/19/2007 4:07:09 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
Here is a quote on Immigration, from a sponsor of a famous bill:
"I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation." Who wrote this? Ted Kennedy? John McCain?
Neither one it was Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada). I know, Nevada doesnt have a Senator Pat McCarran.
But they did, back in 1952. McCarran was the sponsor of a famous immigration bill which was vetoed by President Truman. And then passed over the veto. The more things change especially in Washington, where people are too busy making history to ever learn from it.
By now everyone has heard of the proposed new Immigration Bill, the result of months of secret back-room negotiations between Democrats and Republicans. Rather than attack the bill, or calling names, I am going to do something different. I am going to look at a number of PAST immigration bills, and compare the rhetoric on those bills to the situation today. Hindsight is always 20-20.
The Bills I am considering will include the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran Walter Act), the The Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965 (INSA) (written by what a surprise Ted Kennedy), and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Reagan Greatest Mistake). In each case, I will compare some of the speeches about the bill, to the real-world results which followed.
The background of the McCarran-Warren Act was the flood of illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe, and the continuing Cold War. Two things are interesting in this regard. First, it explicitly contained language concerning 'any alien who has engaged or has had purpose to engage in activities "prejudicial to the public interest" or "subversive to national security"' say, the Fort Dix Six? Compare this to the current immigration bill, which according to National Review, forbids the federal government to use any information included in an application for amnesty in national-security or criminal investigations." (There are also connections to the Patriot Act, as it also allows pre-emptive denial of visas on ideological grounds.) Another interesting feature of the McCarran-Walter Act is the division of immigrants into three categories:.
1. relatives of US citizens who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions
2. average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year
Can anyone look at points 1 and 2 and tell me whether things worked out as planned?
Can you say anchor babies ?
Let us pass on to the 1964 INSA bill, also written by Ted Kennedy. During the debate on this Act, he said ...our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... So I get it. Thats why we needed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and why there is another Immigration Bill in the works today. Because there are too many controls on who comes into the United States? The great contribution of the 1964 bill was to slap large quotas on Europeans with whom the United States shares much of its culture and historical heritage and to emphasize family unification over job skills. It is worth pointing out by the way, that both of Kennedys lies have been refuted. George Borjas, a Cuban, and a Professor at Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government (hows that for irony?) pointed out that the skill level of successive immigrant waves admitted to the U.S. has declined precipitously in the past two or three decades. For example, in 1986 less than 4 per cent of the over 600,000 legal immigrants were admitted on the basis of skills. The 1964 bill therefore helped contribute to the lack of skilled workers that the globalists keep on claiming exists.
Moving on to the 1986 Bill, one which Ronald Reagan called his greatest disappointment, look at this curious provision:
Employers with four or more employees may not discriminate because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens.
Thats odd considering the remarks of executives such as Carly Fiorina that no American has a right to a job or of Microsofts Brian Valentine Think India! Two for the price of one! Isnt that prima facie evidence of illegal discrimination on the basis of citizenship?
But back to the 1986 bill proper. Here are a couple of quotes from President Reagan when he signed the bill:
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. In the past 35 years our nation has been increasingly affected by illegal immigration. This legislation takes a major step toward meeting this challenge to our sovereignty. At the same time, it preserves and enhances the Nation's heritage of legal immigration. I am pleased to sign the bill into law.
We all know how well the heritage of legal immigration has been preserved in the last 21 years, dont we? (And btw, isnt it interesting that we have had immigration bills every 20 years or so since the 1960s? Is that the time required for a farm worker to get too old to work, or for a Congressman to get rich enough to leave office?)
More from President Reagan:
New INA section 245A(d)(2) states that no alien would qualify for the lawful temporary or permanent residence status provided in that section if ``likely to become [a] public charge [ ].'' This disqualification could be waived by the Attorney General under certain circumstances. A likelihood that an applicant would become a public charge would exist, for example, if the applicant had failed to demonstrate either a history of employment in the United States of a kind that would provide sufficient means without public cash assistance for the support of the alien and his likely dependents who are not United States citizens or the possession of independent means sufficient by itself for such support for an indefinite period.
And we all know how well that bill prevented the widespread use of social services by the illegals, dont we?
One more gem:
Section 304 of the bill establishes the Commission on Agricultural Workers, half of whose 12 members are appointed by the executive branch and half by the legislative branch. This hybrid Commission is not consistent with constitutional separation of powers. However, the Commission's role will be entirely advisory.
So Ronald Reagan was even cajoled into something explicitly unconstitutional. By the way, has anyone found out who the members of that commission were, and anything they ever did?
And these are the prior bills, in the harsh glare of hindsight.
What do you EXPECT will happen as a result of the current bill? 700 pages long, and it is supposed to be voted on over a single weekend? And written by Ted Kennedy?
It is time to end this charade.
NO cheers, unfortunately.
Full Disclosure: Do you think Franklin, Jefferson, and company would be drafting a Declaration of Independence yet?
NO cheers, though, unfortunately.
Thanks for posting, good composite of the swimmer and his legacy. New laws will be scoffed at just like the current ones,
As soon as Ted Kennedy got into the Senate he was determined to screw up immigration policy.
I went over to your website and found this jewel:
"Let's begin with Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. The internal memos to and from his staff as a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrate that Kennedy is a bigot. One of those memos urged an all-out fight to prevent Miguel Estrada from being confirmed to the US Circuit Court for the D.C. Circuit, because he is "A Latino" and if appointed to that court, he might later "be nominated for the US Supreme Court.""
Is all the amnesty from Kennedy his form of penance for Miguel Estrada?
His father was a fascist sympathizer and Hitler apologist.
One thing’s for sure, the senate has made a dog’s breakfast with this bill.
Nothing Ted Kennedy can ever do will expiate his crime, but he’s apparently willing to bring down the country in the name of ‘doing good’.
Sad to say, but George W. Bush had the opportunity of the milenia to stop this immigration insanity right in its tracks but decided instead to pander to the politically correct and to befriend his oil Sheik pals and the one-worlders.
On September 12, 2001 he had an almost totally free hand to implement any policy that made sense for America in light of the 9/11 attacks. He could have set a totally new direction to protect America and pursue policies that put our interest above those of other nations, above the one-worlders, and above the politically correct.
- He could have got congress to shut down immigration, totally or in part, allowing only desireable immigrants who would be a positive addition to our population.
- He could have got them to pass a law defining the intent of the 14th Ammendment as not applying to anchor babies born of a non-citizen parent or parents.
- He could have severely restricted travel into the US from countries harboring terrorists.
- He could have got Congress to approve a real security fence to shut down illegals walking into the US from Mexico.
Instead, he chose to play head games with American citizens, trying to convince us that Muslim nations are our friends and Islam is the “religion of peace,” while leaving us wide open to muslim terrorists who can still freely emigrate to the US or just waltz across our open borders.
His post 9/11 politically correct attitude towards muslim evil-doers has a lot to do with our present day culture that kisses up to them and puts up with massive ongoing immigration of muslims who come here to change and dominate us, not to become good Americans.
I supported his election and reelection but I am not blind to the damage his “Compassionate Conservativism” has done to the country.
And thereby spare us the TSA, a new apparatus of state control. There is no way he could not have foreseen how these thugs would be used to control Americans at the false promise of security from (Arab Muslim) terrorists. Putting all the blame on Obama as many are apt do is putting blinders on to not see the controllers. Pat Buchanan once said the middle-class is a target of the left and right wings of the same bird of prey. It seems so true.