Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

29 January 2013

Immigration Reform: If The Past Is Prologue...


M2RB:  Lynyrd Skynryd







Travelin' Man -- that's what I am
Guess I'll always be
Travelin' Man -- that's what I am
But at least I'm free





Balkanised North America



In 1980, Carter received 56% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan only got 37% — a difference of 19%.

In 1984, Mondale received 66% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan only got 34.82% — a difference of 31.18%.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 a/k/a Simpson-Mazzilo into law, which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants, the vast majority of which were Hispanic.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis won 70.15% of the Hispanic vote while the Vice-President of the man who legalised millions of Hispanics, George H W Bush, received a mere 30.85% — a difference of 39.3%.

If Hispanics could be purchased with amnesty, then they would have overwhelmingly voted Republican in 1988. They didn’t so that should tell the “brains” in the GOP something.

Continuing on…

In 1992, Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote while President George H.W. Bush won 25% – a difference of 36%.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton won 72% of the Hispanic vote while Senator Bob Dole received a mere 21% – a difference of 51%.

In 2000, Vice-President Al Gore won 62% of the Hispanic vote while George W Bush won only 35% – a difference of 27%.

In 2004, Senator John Kerry won 58% of the Hispanic vote while President George W Bush won 40% – a difference of 18%.

In 2008, Senator Barack Obama, who voted AGAINST President Bush’s immigration reform, won 67% of the Hispanic vote while Senator John McAmnesty won a mere 31% – a difference of 36%.

In 2012, President Barack Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote while Mitt Romney won only 27% – a difference of 44%.


http://americanwiki.pbworks.com/f/Melting%20Pot.jpg


Out with The Melting Pot!!!


Let's actually go back to 1965 and see what our then-rulers predicted would happen following the passage of the  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965: 


“This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power..This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here. This is a simple test, and it is a fair test. Those who can contribute most to this country–to its growth, to its strength, to its spirit–will be the first that are admitted to this land…The days of unlimited immigration are past. But those who do come will come because of what they are, and not because of the land from which they sprung.”

- President Lyndon B Johnson, signing into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 at the base of the Statue of Liberty, Liberty Island, 3 October 1965.
 

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upsetContrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” 

- Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965. pp. 1-3

 
“I would say for the Asia-Pacific Triangle it [immigration] would be approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear; 5,000 immigrants would come the first year, but we do not expect that there would be any great influx after that.” 

- Attorney General Robert Kennedy, testifying on immigration reform, U.S. Congress, House, 1964 hearings, p. 418 
 

“This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the numbers of newcomers permitted to come to America. Indeed, this measure provides for an increase of only a small fraction in permissible immigration.” 

- Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965, p.8
 

“The present estimate, based upon the best information we can get, is that there might be, say, 8,000 immigrants from India in the next five years … I don’t think we have a particular picture of a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States … There is not a general move toward the United States.” 

- Secretary of State Dean Rusk – U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington D.C., 10 February 1965, p.65
 

“I am aware that this bill is more concerned with the equality of immigrants than with their numbers. It is obvious in any event that the great days of immigration have long since run their course. World population trends have changed, and changing economic and social conditions at home and abroad dictate a changing migratory pattern.”

- Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL), Congressional Record, 25 August 1965, p. 21793 
 

“Contrary to the opinions of some of the misinformed, this legislation does not open the floodgates.” 

- Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI), Congressional Record, 20 September 1965, p. 24480
 


 

 http://www.standagainstracism.org/2010/dumont%20-%20NJ.jpg


 In with the Multi-Kulti Salad Bowl!!!  Yeah!


And, even Republicans either bought into the BS or were in on the deception:
 

"Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States … with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 … the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population .. .Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.” 

- Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI), U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965, pp.71, 119



“The preferences which would be established by this proposal are based, I believe, on sound reasoning and meritorious considerations, not entirely dissimilar in effect from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law.”

– Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Congressional Record, 17 September 1965, p. 24237

 

Sort of like when Senator Hubert Humphrey said “I’ll eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas” when the Senate was debating Affirmative Action.
 
A few people, who opposed The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, did see that the new system, even with tight controls to protect the labour force, would result in dramatic changes:


“We estimate that if the President gets his way, and the current immigration laws are repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more … shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world’s?”

- Congressman William Miller (R-NY), Republican Vice Presidential candidate, The New York Times, 8 September 1964, p. 14


[Note: Although immigration did increase as dramatically as Rep. Miller predicted, it took longer than he thought. By 1968 — when the law fully took effect — the 1965 level of 290,697 had increased to 454,448, "only" a 56 percent increase.]


“What I object to is imposing no limitation insofar as areas of the earth are concerned, but saying that we are throwing the doors open and equally inviting people from the Orient, from the islands of the Pacific, from the subcontinent of Asia, from the Near East, from all of Africa, all of Europe, and all of the Western Hemisphere on exactly the same basis. I am inviting attention to the fact that this is a complete and radical departure from what has always heretofore been regarded as sound principles of immigration.”

- Sen. Spessard Holland (D-FL), Congressional Record, 22 September 1965, p. 24779


Among those who more accurately foresaw the future effects of the change in immigration law was a certain Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, who testified at a Senate immigration subcommittee hearing: 


“In light of our 5 percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion, and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great a horde of the world’s unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome … for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands….We should remember that people accustomed to such marginal existence in their own land will tend to live fully here, to hoard our bounteous minimum wages and our humanitarian welfare handouts … lower our wage and living standards, disrupt our cultural patterns …Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.” 

– Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., 10 February 1965, pp. 681-687 

 
Later, even renown Progressives rued the day that the Act became law:



"The United States cannot regain its competitive standing in the world by importing low wage workers from other countries.  On the one hand, it engenders conditions this country cannot and should not tolerate.  On the other hand, in the modern age, a nation's wealth and prosperity is secured by high worker productivity and capital investment, not by the availability of low-wage labour."

 - Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN), 1968 Democratic Presidential nominee


“The immigration Act of 1965 changed all previous patterns, and in so doing, probably changed the future of America … [it] was noble, revolutionary – and probably the most thoughtless of many acts of the Great Society.”

- Theodore White, American political journalist, historian, and novelist, Kennedy family intimate, coiner of the term "Camelot" to describe the Kennedy Administration, America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President 1956-1980, 1982



Related Reading:
 

Civil Rights Commission:  "Granting Illegal Immigrants Effective Amnesty Would 'Harm Lower-Skilled, African-American"

Will Aging Childless Voters Enslave My Future Grandchildren?

After Arizona:  The Field, Still Unoccupied

A Fair Warning To Those Promoting Open Borders, Amnesty, & Free Immigration - Surprise! That “Permanent” coalition idea didn’t work out so well when Labour set out to do change the demographics of the country

 

Balkanisation will lead to??? ...

 

 

 



Travelin' Man - Lynyrd Skynyrd

I was born a travelin' man, that's all I'll ever be
Moving around from town to town is what makes me so free
My father was a trucker for the years of '23
On the day that I was born his blood was left to me
I'm a travelin' man
Travelin' Man -- that's what I am
Travelin' Man
Travelin' Man
That's what I am

Travelin' man -- that's what I am
No woman puts a hold on me
You'll see me once or maybe twice
That's all you'll see of me
All you pretty women Lord, I hope you understand
Don't be a fool Lord no, and put your heart in a travellin' man
I'm a travelin' man
Travelin' Man
Travelin' Man -- that's what I am
Travelin' Man

Travelin' Man -- that's what I am
Guess I'll always be
Travelin' Man -- that's what I am
But at least I'm free

Travelin' man
Oh - that's what I am

Travelin' man -- that's what I am, Lord I move so fast
I have had so many women, none of them have last
I am just a mover, moving fast as sound
Always free, sometimes lonely. Always movin' around
Travelin' Man
Travelin' Man -- that's what I am
Travelin' Man
Oh - that's what I am 

 

No comments: