Immigration debate in the USA

[kmich]

On Saint Patrick's day, some history of our nation's immigration:

VJZjEKJllOk

[Doc]

On Saint Patrick's day, some history of our nation's immigration:

VJZjEKJllOk

7QkXUFefAR0

[Simple Minded]

On Saint Patrick's day, some history of our nation's immigration:

VJZjEKJllOk

I sent this to a friend born and raised in Ireland who is in his 80's and asked his opinion. His reply: If my ancestors got here first the signs would have said "No fekin English need apply."

[Simple Minded]

7QkXUFefAR0

Thank you pretty lady with green eye shadow and nice cleavage!

Just this week I was triggered by, are you ready?
Asians eating spaghetti with forks and spoons.
White people in a Chinese restaurant.
Native American looking dude wearing a baseball hat rather than a headdress full of feathers.
Some black chic wearing a tight pair of jeans (even though she looked really hot in them).

Some days it is really tough being holier than thou. Almost not worth the effort.......

[Doc]

7QkXUFefAR0

Thank you pretty lady with green eye shadow and nice cleavage!

Just this week I was triggered by, are you ready?
Asians eating spaghetti with forks and spoons.
White people in a Chinese restaurant.
Native American looking dude wearing a baseball hat rather than a headdress full of feathers.
Some black chic wearing a tight pair of jeans (even though she looked really hot in them).

Some days it is really tough being holier than thou. Almost not worth the effort.......

Then there is the biggest cultural appropriations of all 1)"Bots" 2) Troll. Main variation of either being "Russian"

[Doc]

Elon Musk decides to stop letting Facebook live in his head rent free.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43 ... um=twitter

Elon Musk pulls brands from Facebook

23 March 2018

Entrepreneur Elon Musk has had the official Facebook pages for his Tesla and SpaceX companies deleted.

The #deletefacebook movement has grown after data firm Cambridge Analytica was accused of obtaining the personal information of about 50 million users.

Mr Musk had poked fun at speaker brand Sonos after it said it would suspend advertising on Facebook for one week.

His followers challenged him to have his own companies' pages deleted, which he did within minutes.

Mr Musk said he "didn't realise" that his SpaceX brand had a Facebook page. "Literally never seen it even once," he wrote on Twitter. "Will be gone soon."

Another follower pointed out that his battery firm Tesla also had a profile on the social network.

"Looks lame," he replied. Both profiles disappeared within minutes of his posts.

The pages had more than 2.5 million followers each before they were deactivated.

In 2016, Facebook used SpaceX to launch a new communications satellite valued at more than $200m (£150m).

However, the rocket exploded on the launch pad and destroyed the satellite.

After a reporter tweeted that "@elonmusk blew up Mark Zuckerberg's satellite", Mr Must replied: "Yeah, my fault for being an durian. We did give them a free launch to make up for it and I think they had some insurance."

He said he would continue to use Facebook-owned Instagram for the time being, but lamented "FB influence is slowly creeping in".

[Typhoon]

Taki | A bleak future for Jews

Here’s the abstract: The fear of being Holocausted by whites is driving the Jewish community to suicidal self-destructiveness. As I wrote in January 2018, the “healthy, virile hate” that Elie Wiesel counseled all Jews to forever cling to regarding the wrongs done to them during the Holocaust has metastasized into something truly destructive. An overwhelming number of U.S. Jews support flooding the nation (and the West in general) with Third World immigrants. Not in their specific communities, of course, but in the parts of the country that are seen as being too dangerously white.

[Simple Minded]

Wow! only the third time (Tucker Carlson asking Horge Ramos was the second, I was the first) someone asks the most obvious question in the world, in response to another virtuous rich person saying "You should be doing more to help these people!"

How can you have a debate on immigration without asking the obvious question?

" Salvini, who this week pushed through parliament tougher sanctions on charity ships that seek to bring migrants rescued at sea to Italy, was quick to reply.

"Given this generous millionaire is voicing concern for the fate of the Open Arms migrants, we thank him: he can take back to Hollywood, on his private plane, all the people aboard and support them in his villas. Thank you Richard!" he said in a statement."


https://news.yahoo.com/hollywood-star-g ... 40190.html

[Parodite]

This Salvini is an interesting cookie. He even wants universal basic income.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

This is from the Reverend William Henry Ryder, a "know nothing" who served in various universalist and unitary congregations in the Boston area and his 1854 book, "Our Country"

We mean to encourage and cultivate among ourselves an intense nationality. We mean, as it is the dominant element, that the Anglo-Saxon element shall bear superior sway. We mean to stand by our good old mother tongue against the world, because it is the language of liberty all over the world. We mean, as it is our right, our constitutional right, and as it is our duty, to bear arms, so that we can, when our republic is assailed, defend it, for it has so turned out in human affairs that a country that cannot defend its liberty, has not retained it long. We mean to act in the spirit of that patriotism which governed our fathers, when they placed in the Constitution of the United States the provision that no man, save a native born citizen of this Republic, should be President of these United States.

Fellow-Citizens, I have spoken of these disturbing elements in our politics, — Slavery and Priestcraft. They have a common purpose : they seek Cuba and Hayti and the Mexican States together, because they will be Catholic and Slave. I say they are in alliance by the necessity of their nature, — for one denies the right of a man to his body, and the other the right of a man to his soul. The one denies his right to think for himself, the other the right to act for himself. One, assuming the livery of Democracy, steals men, and sells men, and buys men it would not pay to steal, — men beneath the slave, inasmuch as he never stooped to the degradation of selling himself. The other assumes the livery of Heaven, not to traffic in the bodies of men so much as in their souls : — for so much it will absolve, for so much pass you over that hard road to travel — Purgatory. Fortunately, men are not as bad as their systems. There is something deep down in the soul of every man, be he Catholic or Protestant, which rebels eternally against absolute authority, — and that, when you find it, is Protestantism, in whatever breast.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

From Louis Schade's 1856 monograph, The Immigration Into the United States of America From a Statistical and National-Economical Point of View

Emigration is as old as mankind. The first history of man is nothing but a narration of event s which befell individuals or whole nations whilst migrating from one country to another, pictured by single deeds of gallantry or depravity of prominent men. In general, emigration has always flowed from east to west. . . . But emigration in the American sense was unknown to the ancient and middle ages. The emigrants to this country came not as conquerors fighting for their native sovereign, or to increase, by their labor, his finances and revenues, but for the purpose of founding a new home, a new fatherland. They came to the land of their choice as freemen, with the expectation to die also as such.

In the catalogue of “injuries and usurpations” on which the immortal signers of the Declaration of Independence based their resolution to defy the power of the king of Great Britain, the following stands conspicuous:

“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, an d raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.”

These, amongst others, were enumerated as evidence of a direct object on the part of the British king to establish “an absolute tyranny over the States.” The founders of our republic, therefore, favored immigration, and to that end denounced the obstruction to naturalization, and the refusal to “encourage migration hither” by George the Third, as acts of tyranny. The illustrious patriots who framed the constitution introduced into it a clause empowering Congress to adopt a “uniform rule of naturalization.” The first Congress which assembled under the constitution, composed to a great degree of the same sages and statesmen who had signed the Declaration of Independence and framed the constitution, enacted a law by which any free white alien, who had resided two years within the United States, might become a citizen. . . .

It is now proposed by the modern order of patriots, who delight in the name of know -nothings, to prevent the further immigration of foreigners by repealing the naturalization laws entirely, if that is found practicable, and, if not, to obstruct it as much as possible by extending the term of residence to twenty -one years. Their first proposition is substantially the policy of the king of Great Britain, which the signers of the Declaration denounced to the world as tyrannical. . . . The democrats stand upon the platform first erected under Washington, and reestablished under Jefferson, for carrying into practical effect the policy proclaimed by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. . . .

If immigration is wrong now, it was wrong then; if obstructions to naturalization are right now, they were right then.

We are not without reliable data on which to determine whether know- nothings are wiser and more patriotic than Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the host of sages and statesmen who have concurred with them in encouraging immigration and facilitating naturalization. We have the fruits of their policy, and by that standard we will judge of its wisdom. . . . We have now thirty-one States, with a free population of more than twenty millions. Population and territory are prominent elements in natural strength, prosperity, and greatness. Our revenues have increased from a few millions to more than fifty annually. Immense new empires of new territory have been acquired and paid for, and now furnish homes and happiness to millions of enterprising and productive citizens. Our progress, in all that gives power and greatness to a nation, ha s filled the world with wonder and admiration, whilst it has filled our own people with a spirit of national pride which they have abundant cause to indulge. All this, and manifold more, will be readily conceded even by our know -nothing patriots: but, in their simplicity, they will ask, what has our amazing progress, in all the elements of national prosperity and grandeur, to do with the policy of immigration and naturalization? We will endeavor to enlighten them by the irresistible logic of facts and figures.

If the know-nothings had controlled the government in 1789, when the constitution went into operation, instead of encouraging immigration and enacting liberal naturalization laws, their policy would have been in total exclusion of all foreigners. They would have acted upon the doctrine which they now advocate, “Americans must rule America;” and to that end no foreigner would have been allowed a resting place within the limits of the Old Thirteen. Let us now see how that policy would have worked.

In 1790 the population of the United States, including whites and free colored persons, was 3,231,930. If all increase from immigration had been cut off, in pursuance of the know -nothing doctrine, the surplus of births over deaths would have constituted the only growth in our population. A very interesting problem then presents itself. Upon the know- nothing policy, if adopted in 1790, what would be the present population of the United States? Fortunately, the census table furnishes us with the data for solving this proposition, and of illustrating the wonderful wisdom of the know -nothing policy. . . . . . .

The calculation is a long and tedious one, but the result is mathematically certain. It is this: The population in 1790 being 3,231,930, and being increased alone by the surplus of births over deaths, would in 1850 amount to 7,555,423 whites and free colored persons, including 200,000 for Louisiana, Florida, California, and those territories which were acquired since 1790. But upon turning to the actual returns o f the census of 1850, we find the number of whites and free colored persons to be 19,987,573. It appears, then, that if the know- nothing policy had been adopted in 1790, our present population would be 7,555,423, instead of its actual number of 19,987,573 —a difference in population between the know -nothing and the democratic policy of 12,432,150.

None can fail to see in these figures the great benefit this country has derived from the increased immigration. . . . But for the influence of immigration, the wonderful works of improvement, which have added so much to our national wealth and prosperity, could not have been accomplished. To this we are indebted, in an eminent degree, for the thousands of miles of railroad and canal communication which now cover our vast domain like a network, and furnish ready and profitable facilities for realizing the benefits of the productive energies and enterprise of every industrial pursuit. To this we are indebted for the reduction of the vast wilderness of the west and northwest to the dominion of civilization and industry, swelling the amount of our annual revenues, increasing to an almost limitless extent our commercial wealth, and placing us in the front rank of nations as an agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial people. To immigration we are indebted in no small degree for the rapid addition of State after State to the confederacy, until we have spanned the continent with more than double our original number. But it cannot be necessary to dwell upon results so astounding to foreign nations, and so flattering to our national pride. To appreciate them, we have but to imagine twelve millions of our population withdrawn, and reflect upon the amazing contrast that would now be presented with a population little more than one- third of its present number! . . . . . .

It is true, the people of the United States, as a power, can use means to prevent immigration, and prohibit it if they will. But, in doing so, an original and distinguished principle of the government must be abrogated; and, having done this, we descend to a level with the arbitrary and proscriptive thrones of Europe . But the loss of the laborious immigrant will soon be felt. . . . Men of genius, artists, scholars, came with this tide of immigration; and, while they have been able to find employment for themselves, they have also vastly contributed to the intellectual stores of this country. A remarkable instance of the public spirit and generosity of foreign-born citizens may be seen in the fact that the three leading scientific or educational institutions in the United States were founded by men born in other lands. I allude to the great Astor Library, of New York, endowed by the German John Jacob Astor; the Girard College, in Philadelphia, endowed by the Frenchman, Stephen Girard; and the Smithsonian Institution, at Washington, endowed by the Englishman, John Smithson. . . .

The principles of the know-nothings carried out would degrade the emigrant to the low position of an East Indian pariah, or a Russian serf, excepting only that they could not be sold. They would doom in to a fate far worse than the hardest despotism of the Old World. There, at least, he would have the consciousness of not suffering alone, as the whole population, and not a part of it, would have no more rights than himself. Here he would be marked out as an inferior, useful only to dig canals and build railroads, to fight like the Helots of old, to act as hewer of wood and drawer of water to those who falsely call themselves superior beings. And not this only. While this is sought to be made the lot of the white adopted citizens —while the laboring classes are appealed to deny equal privileges to the foreign-born fellow-being of their own race —behold their efforts making in the free States to elevate the negro to the political rights and privileges of the whites!

“Americans must rule America!” —that is the constant war-cry of the know-nothings. There are at present in the United States twenty-seven millions of inhabitants, of which five millions are foreigners. . . . But there is not a single foreign-born member of Congress. Are the democratic members for whom foreign-born citizens have cast their vote, not as good, intelligent, and wise as those who have been elected by a mere native vote? The know- nothings speak constantly of their revolutionary inheritance, their “glorious sires of ’76.” Will they inform me how many of them can trace back their lineage to the time of the Revolution? Are not at least two -thirds of their number descendants of those who arrived in the country since 1790? Was not, in New York, even their candidate for governor the son of a foreigner? Are not, with only the exception of two, all the 148 or 149 know -nothings of the New York State legislature sons of foreign parents? The answer to these questions will put to shame the warfare which the know -nothingism is waging upon the policy of the founders of this republic. It is not simply a warfare upon the foreign -born citizens diffused throughout the Union, identified in interest with our institutions; connected by the closest ties with native- born citizens; engaged in industrial pursuits which add to the national wealth and prosperity; levelling mountains and filling up valleys for our great internal improvements; felling the forests, and spreading the area of productive agriculture in the Far West; shouldering their muskets when the tocsin of war sounds; and fighting and dying bravely on the battle field by the side of native Americans. A warfare upon such a body of men is bad enough in all conscience; but the warfare of know-nothingism is against the principles on which our Revolution was started and consummated —against the policy engrafted upon our constitution, and carried out by liberal naturalization laws in Congress; and against the prosperity of the nation, which has received one of its chief impulses from this policy.

[noddy]

malthus was ere.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Some residents say refugees would just make Beltrami County's struggles worse

"I see what goes on down in California and all these other places where they have so many immigrants, illegal ones, and you hear about it through Facebook and different places, and I just do not approve that it should be brought to Bemidji, Minnesota," said Joyce Fargen, 86, of Bemidji.

http://www.startribune.com/some-residen ... 566912092/