Immigration To America

Immigration makes a difference to a country. For example it has made Australia into one of the world's best places to live. By the same token it has turned  Liberia into what is perhaps the world's worst. Immigration can be used as a political tool, for Subversion & for Genocide. That is what is happening in America. See more on this at Ethnic Fouling In America. It is also happening in Canada, England, France, Holland, Ireland and the rest of Western Civilization. An example is the Somalis Imported Into Minnesota. Some of the many thousands have gone back to Africa to wage war. Do they speak English, care about America, about civilized values? Believe it if you want. At the same time the Jews' War On White Australia Continues.

This article by Kevin MacDonald published in the Occidental Observer tells us that Chuck Schumer, a Jew in the American Senate is waging war against America on behalf of Israel. Professor MacDonald, as always produces sources for his statements. Is he right or wrong? Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.
PS In England there are Superior Rights For Illegal Immigrants

In fact immigration policy has been a political issue in America for many years. Resulting Acts are at #List of United States immigration laws. A fuller account of an early Act is Immigration Into America 1924

From http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/02/the-amnesty-immigration-surge-and-senator-schumers-war-against-white-anglo-saxons/

 

The Amnesty/ Immigration Surge And Senator Schumer’s War Against “White Anglo-Saxons”
by Kevin MacDonald

This article is also posted at VDARE.

Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the notorious Eight Banditos, gave a revealing speech to the Center for American Progress about the Tea Party  the other day. Conservatism Inc. types like  Bill O’Reilly criticized Schumer’s remarkably blatant call for the IRS to be used against the Tea Party. But more important was Schumer’s equally blatant acknowledgement of the ethnic agenda behind post-1965 immigration policy—and behind the implacable drive for some form of Amnesty/ Immigration Surge, which the House GOP Leadership appears to endorse this week.

Basically, according to Schumer, Tea Partiers are afraid of change. He drew an analogy with the Temperance Movement of the 1920s as a reaction to the changes wrought by the last 1880–1924 immigration Great Wave:

This reaction against social and cultural changes isn’t new to us. Edward Shils, a professor from the University of Chicago, wrote about the Temperance Movement identifying that it was about much more than abolishing liquor.  In the 1880s the U.S. was a rural country and people were on farms and small towns living a clean, God-fearing life. By 1920, America had been urbanized and diversified because of manufacturing, immigration, and so many other forces.

And the cities were a totally different way of life with slums, bars and dance clubs, emerging suburbs and country clubs.  Prohibition was not simply about abolishing alcohol; it was an attempt by rural Americans to pull their country back to a Jeffersonian agricultural ideal that was being rapidly replaced by a new cultural and economic order.

Today, we see the Tea Party doing much of the same thing. Tea Party adherents see an America that’s not reflective of themselves, and the America they have known, and they just don’t like it. [Emphases added throughout].

The reference to Edward Shils is revealing: Shils, a member of the New York Intellectuals—a Jewish intellectual movement reviewed in Chapter 6 of my book The Culture of Critique—was a leading theorist of the idea that attempts by majorities to resist the increase in the power and influence of other groups are contrary to the democratic process. A defining feature of the New York Intellectuals was their hostile reinterpretation of Populism, the anti-elite insurrectionary movement of the 1890s.

As I noted:

There were also real conflicts of interest involved. On one side were Jewish intellectuals advancing their interests as an urbanized intellectual elite bent on ending Protestant, Anglo-Saxon demographic and cultural predominance. On the other side were what John Higham [Send these to me: immigrants in urban America49] terms “the common people of the South and West” who were battling to maintain their own cultural and demographic dominance.

As the vanguard of an urbanized Jewish intellectual elite, this group of intellectuals was also contemptuous of the lower middle class generally. [As noted by Christopher Lasch,] from the perspective of these intellectuals, this class

clung to outworn folkways—conventional religiosity, hearth and home, the sentimental cult of motherhood—and obsolete modes of production. It looked back to a mythical golden age in the past. … Lacking liberal culture, it fell easy prey to all sorts of nostrums and political fads. [The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics, Christopher Lasch 1991, 458)  (see here, pp. 195–196)

It may well be true that the Temperance Movement was really about opposition to a changed America. After all, shortly after the Eighteenth Amendment passed in 1920, the Immigration Act of 1924, which attempted to maintain an ethnic status quo as of 1890, was also passed by much the same constituency.

Of course, this proved to be a temporary victory. The passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 opened immigration to all the peoples of the world. I have argued that this was a watershed victory marking Jewish immigrants’ rise to power as an intellectual, media, financial and political elite in the U.S.

Nevertheless, with the 20/20 hindsight of history, there is no question that the “common people” fearing change in the 1920swere absolutely right to want to restrict the tide of immigration.

But their actions proved to be too little, too late. There was already a critical mass of soon-to-be elite Americans who were hostile to the traditional people and culture of America, and who subsequently have used their power to dispossess them.

Senator Schumer is a prime example.

Thus the struggle between populist movements rooted in the middle- and lower-class White America and a hostile elite is ongoing. But the forces against these populist movements have been greatly aided by the 1965 Immigration Act, which has resulted in increasing the non-White population of America by around 68 million

This increase in the non-White population has had a dramatically negative impact on the political power of White America—which pleases Schumer greatly. He says:

Yes, things have changed. White Anglo-Saxon men are not exclusively running the country anymore.  President Obama lost the white male vote 35%-62%, yet he recaptured the presidency by 5 million votes and a resounding Electoral College margin. And more profoundly, only 1 in 10 GOP voters were non-white.[Schumer: Tea Party Opposes Immigration Reform Because America Is Becoming Less White, TPM, January 23, 2014,]

Just why White Americans should want an America dominated by people unlike themselves is unexplained by Schumer. But, as a professor of psychology, let me give a primer on why they shouldn’t want it: Multiculturalism leads to conflict between groups, political alienation, lack of willingness to contribute to public goods, and, I suspect, increasing victimization of whites by groups that hold historical grudges against whites because of real and imagined conflicts in the past.

Schumer, who is nothing if not a Jewish nationalist, would be horrified at the suggestion that Israel has no legitimacy as a Jewish state. He is leading the charge for the Iran War Bill in the Senate, a project of the Israel Lobby. He also supports an organization that opposes abortion for Jewish women in order to increase the Jewish population in Israel, while being staunchly pro-choice for his American audience.

In the U.S., however, Schumer campaigns to displace the historic American Nation. And he is winning—in fact (thanks to John Boehner) he is on the verge of victory.

As Schumer notes, white Americans of all social classes are indeed coalescing the Republican Party. This phenomenon is part of the ongoing racialization of American politics.

When I was growing up in Wisconsin, the Republican Party was the party of choice for business and professional people. But in the most recent presidential election whites of all age groups and all social classes voted for Romney, even though Republican Party elites have done essentially nothing to defend this constituency.

Schumer continues:

[“Fear of a changing America] also explains why so many on the right vehemently opposed the Senate immigration bill, a bill that actually embodies many conservative, non-governmental principals [sic]: reducing our deficit by billions, growing our economy, creating jobs and spurring new entrepreneurial activity. In a pre-tea party world, the Senate immigration bill would have been welcomed by House Republicans. However, the tea party rank and file know it’s a different AmericaIt looks different; it prays different; it works different. This is unsettling and angering to some.

The idea that there is anything at all in the Senate immigration bill that is “conservative,” fiscally prudent, or likely to “grow the economy” is of course a bald-faced lie. Schumer’s Senate colleague Jeff Sessions has it right:

With three job seekers for every open job, [Obama] proposes doubling the number of guest workers entering every year, granting immediate work permits to millions of illegal immigrants, and tripling the number of new immigrants granted permanent residency over the next decade.

Today, the U.S. admits 1 million immigrants a year. The plan supported by the president and Senate Democrats would increase that to 3 million a year, or 30 million largely lower-skill immigrants over the next 10.

Did anyone ask the American people whether they wanted to triple immigration?

Polling shows that the public opposes these increases. The opposition is particularly strong among lower- and middle-income Americans. Those earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase by 3-1.

This is not hard to understand. From 2000 to 2013, a period of record immigration, the number of U.S.-born Americans with jobs declined by 1.3 million while the number of immigrants with jobs increased 5.3 million. On net, all employment gains went to immigrant workers.

Sen. Sessions: Immigration spikes income inequality, January 27, 2014 (Links in original)

There go those lower-and middle-income Americans again—still fighting for their legitimate, rational interests after all these years, and despite Schumer’s assertion that most Americans “overwhelmingly” support the Senate immigration bill.

But now, they are fighting a rear-guard action in the House of Representatives, their power dwindling with each election cycle.

The bottom line here: Schumer correctly depicts the issue as an ethnic conflict in which White Americans are losing. And it’s clear which side he is on—the same side as the organized Jewish community and non-White America, which overwhelmingly votes Democrat (80% for Obama in the 2012 election).

I believe that Schumer is also correct that the pleas of the Tea Partiers for limited government are really all about fear that the America they once knew and loved is fast disappearing, along with their power and cultural influence.

In other words, it’s about implicit whiteness—attitudes that express White interests and attitudes but without explicitly framing them in racial/ethnic terms.

This is unlike the 1920s, when immigration patriots argued that all groups in the country had legitimate ethnic interests, so that a pre-Great Wave ethnic status quo was fair to all. (They did not, contrary to myth, argue that any group was superior.)

The fact that arguments defending the ethnic status quo are missing in mainstream debates over immigration is yet another sign of the dominance of the anti-white Left. The argument from ethnic interests is powerful, and it is at least arguable that without explicitly legitimizing arguments based on ethnic interests, the anti-immigration forces cannot win. But apparently it cannot be made.

In default of such arguments, it is no surprise that the Tea Partiers resort to rhetoric about the size of government.

Schumer’s solution for destroying the Tea Party: to convince them that big government is just fine, by emphasizing things like Social Security and Medicare which appeal to white Americans.

But, as he is quite aware, it’s not really about big government. It’s about the eclipse of white America.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach and a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer. For his website, click here.

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws

List of United States immigration laws ex Wiki

A number of major laws and court decisions relating to immigration procedures and enforcement have been enacted for the United States.

Year Name of legislation or case Major highlights
1790 Naturalization Act of 1790 Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
1795 Naturalization Act of 1795 Lengthened required residency to become citizen.
1798

Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566)

Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570)

Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577)

  • Extended the duration of residence required for immigrants to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
  • Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.
  • Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21
1802 Naturalization Law of 1802
1870 Naturalization Act of 1870
  • Extended the naturalization process to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent."
  • Other non-whites were not included in this act and remained excluded from naturalization, per the Naturalization Act of 1790
1875 Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
  • The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as "undesirable"
  • The law classified as "undesirable" any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer
  • Strengthen the ban against "coolie" laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States "without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service"
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act
  • Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years.
  • Prohibited Chinese naturalization.
  • Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.
  • Marked the birth of illegal immigration (in America).[1]
  • The Act was "a response to racism [in America] and to anxiety about threats from cheap labor [from China]." [2]
1882 Immigration Act of 1882
  • First comprehensive immigration law for the US.
  • Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
1885 Alien Contract Labor Law (Sess. II Chap. 164; 23 Stat. 332) Prohibited the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States
1891 Immigration Act of 1891
  • First comprehensive immigration laws for the US.
  • Bureau of Immigration set up in the Treasury Dept.[3]
  • Immigration Bureau directed to deport unlawful aliens.
  • Empowered "the superintendent of immigration to enforce immigration laws".[4]
1892 Geary Act Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.
1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark[5] The Supreme Court ruled that a child of Chinese descent born in the United States - whose parents at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China but who are domiciled in the United States as permanent residents; are carrying on business there; and are not employed in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the Emperor of China - is a citizen of the United States by virtue of having been born "in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," per the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Several years later, in the wake of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, a number of Chinese immigrants who were otherwise subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act were nonetheless able to claim American citizenship by alleging they were born in San Francisco, and that their birth certificates had been destroyed along with those of everyone else who had been born in San Francisco. "Papers for fictitious children were sold in China, allowing Chinese to immigrate despite the laws." [1]

1903 Immigration Act of 1903 (Anarchist Exclusion Act) Added four inadmissible classes: anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and importers of prostitutes
1906 Naturalization Act of 1906
  • Standardized naturalization procedures
  • made some knowledge of English a requirement for citizenship
  • established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
1907 Immigration Act of 1907 Restricted immigration for certain classes of disabled and diseased people
1917 Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) Restricted immigration from Asia by creating an "Asiatic Barred Zone" and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over sixteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.
1918 Immigration Act of 1918 Expanded on the provisions of the Anarchist Exclusion Act.
1921 Emergency Quota Act
  • Limited the number of immigrants a year from any country to 3% of those already in the US from that country as per the 1910 census.

"An unintended consequence of the 1920s legislation was an increase in illegal immigration. Many Europeans who did not fall under the quotas migrated to Canada or Mexico, which [as Western Hemisphere nations] were not subject to national-origin quotas; [and] subsequently they slipped into the United States illegally." [6]

1922 The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act") Reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage, also known as the Married Women's Citizenship Act or the Women's Citizenship Act. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.
1924 Immigration Act (Johnson-Reed Act)
  • Imposed first permanent numerical limit on immigration.
  • Began a national-origin quota system.
1924 National Origins Formula
  • Established with the Immigration Act of 1924.
  • Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations.
  • Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received.
  • Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant's residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the United States.
  • Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy, and students to obtain visas.
1934

Equal Nationality Act of 1934

  • Allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before age 18 and lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.
  • Made the naturalization process quicker for American women's alien husbands.
1930s

Federal officials deported "Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans... Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens." [7] "Applications for legal admission into the United States increased following World War II — and so did illegal immigration." [8] Some used fraudulent marriages as their method of illegal entry in the U.S. "Japanese immigration became disproportionately female, as more women left Japan as "picture brides", betrothed to emigrant men into the U.S. whom they had never met." [9]

1940 Nationality Act of 1940 Pertains chiefly to "Nationality at Birth," Nationality through Naturalization," and "Loss of Nationality"
1943 Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 (Magnuson Act) Repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese nationals already in the country to become naturalized citizens. A quota of 105 new Chinese immigrants were allowed into America per year.
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act)
  • Set a quota for aliens with skills needed in the US.
  • Increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected of Communist sympathies.
1953 Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953) The Supreme Court found, "The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But while an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders".
1954 Operation Wetback Immigration and Naturalization Service roundup and deportation of undocumented immigrants in selected areas of California, Arizona, and Texas along the border. The U.S. Border Patrol later reported that more than 1.3 million people (a number viewed by many to be inflated and not accurate) were deported or left the U.S. voluntarily under the threat of deportation in 1954.[10]
1965 INA Amendments (Hart-Celler Act)
  • Repealed the national-origin quotas.
  • Initiated a visa system for family reunification and skills.
  • Set a quota for Western Hemisphere immigration.
  • Set a 20k country limit for Eastern Hemisphere aliens.
1966 Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act Cuban nationals who enter, or were already present in the United States, legal status.
1970s

The United States saw a total number of illegal immigrants estimated at 1.1 million, or half of one percent of the United States population.

1980s
  • About 1.3 million illegal immigrants entered the US.
1982 Plyler v. Doe,[11] 457 U.S. 202 (1982) The court also stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside and, therefore, are under the equal protection laws of the fourteenth amendment, and stated, "We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [457 U.S. 202, 212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority."
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
  • Started sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
  • Provided amnesty to illegal aliens already in the US.[12]
  • Increased border enforcement.
  • Made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant
1990s

Over 5.8 million illegal immigrants entered the US in the 1990s.[13] Mexico rose to the head of the list of sending countries, followed by the Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and China.[14]

1990 Immigration Act
  • Increased legal immigration ceilings.
  • Created a diversity admissions category.
  • Tripled the number of visas for priority workers and professionals with U.S. job offers[citation needed] [15]
1990 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez[16] The court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), "The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But while an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders".

Stated, "those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 ."

1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRaIRA)
  • Phone verification for worker authentication by employers.
  • Access to welfare benefits more difficult for legal aliens.
  • Increased border enforcement.
  • Reed Amendment attempted to deny visas to former U.S. citizens, but was never enforced[17]
1999 Rodriguez v. United States, 169 F.3d 1342, (11th Cir. 1999) Held that statutes which discriminate within the class of aliens comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (and the equal protection principles it incorporates) so long as they satisfy rational basis scrutiny.
Post 9/11/2001
  • An estimated 3.1 million immigrants entered the United States illegally between 2000 and 2005.[15]
  • From 1998 to 2001, Mexicans accounted for 68% of immigrants who entered the United States illegally. That percentage jumped to 78% for the years between 2001 and 2005, mostly due to stricter security measures that followed the September 11, 2001 Attacks upon the United States (which more efficiently prevented illegal entry from nations that did not share a land or maritime boundary with the United States).[18]
2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
  • Provided for more Border Patrol agents.
  • Requires that schools report foreign students attending classes.
  • Stipulates that foreign nationals in the US will be required to carry IDs with biometric technology.[19]
2005 REAL ID Act
  • Required use of IDs meeting certain security standards to enter government buildings, board planes, open bank accounts.
  • Created more restrictions on political asylum
  • Severely curtailed habeas corpus relief for immigrants
  • Increased immigration enforcement mechanisms
  • Altered judicial review
  • Established national standards for state driver licenses.
  • Cleared the way for the building of border barriers.
2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Dream Act
  • On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.[20]