Thread: Repeal the Immigration Act of 1965"?

GO TO ARTICLE TO CLICK ON ADDITIONAL LINKS

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_012107.htm

Do you suppose we could make our movement about "Repeal?" As in, "Repeal the Immigration Act of 1965"?

Many in the public don't even know about this law. Many feel that immigration is normal and inevitable in American life, the way snow falling is in winter.

Letting them know that a mere law brought it all about recasts the debate. It shows people that immigration is in fact optional and exceptional in our history.

"Repeal the Act" gives us an actual, tangible piece of legislation (gone awry, at that) to fight against. The cry "Stop Immigration Now" can be derided by our opponents as hopeless an exhortation as King Canute's against the sea that lapped around his royal slippers. "Repeal Public Law 89-236", on the other hand, proposes nothing more daunting than the stroke of a pen.

"Repeal" is a bite-sized slogan that has famously succeeded before.

Letting them know that a mere law brought it all about recasts the debate. It shows people that immigration is in fact optional and exceptional in our history.

1965 is mainly what opened the doors for what we have now. As many here already know one of the main players from that whole debacle is still playing the game. Hell not only playing but leading the way with GW and Mr McCain at his side.

Repeal, imagine that?

The main thing the 1965 act did was remove the "national origins" quotas; these quotas mainly limited immigration to Europeans. It was not the 1965 act that screwed us so much as the 1986 amnesty, 1990 immigration increase, and other amnesties in the 1990's. Those are what need to be repealed, along with the anchor baby scam.

The main thing the 1965 act did was remove the "national origins" quotas; these quotas mainly limited immigration to Europeans. It was not the 1965 act that screwed us so much as the 1986 amnesty,"The main thing the 1965 act did was remove the "national origins" quotas"

Exactly! However I disagree that 65 is not relevant. While the numbers are the main thing it isn't just the numbers. This along with LBJ's "Great Society" are not happenstance. The leftest agenda and this whole push toward "multiculturalism" is largely at the heart of the matter.

Originally Posted by AlturaCt

However I disagree that 65 is not relevant. While the numbers are the main thing it isn't just the numbers. This along with LBJ's "Great Society" are not happenstance. The leftest agenda and this whole push toward "multiculturalism" is largely at the heart of the matter.

So you are saying go back to the national origins quota system? Man, you really would be tarred as a racist then. There are probably other ways to get immigrants that revere American values which would be less controversial.

So you are saying go back to the national origins quota system?

No, I never said that. However that would be preferable to what we have now. Quite frankly I don't care who calls me "racist". That term is largely undefined and usually meant to shut down true discourse. Common sense and non PC thinking is what we need. I don't know about quotas but this largely one way migration from south of the border is certainly not the answer nor in America's best interest either. I'd prefer those who embrace our culture and want to be Americans. Those who appreciate our history and the struggles and bloodshed that has gone into the making of this country. Our way of life and American sovereignty. I also want to make sure we are taking care of America and American citizens before we import "the best and the brightest". What about our best and brightest? We are not the world and we have a right to preserve our culture just like any other.

Why should we believe anything this man says about reforming and passing new illegal immigration laws now? He sure got it wrong in 1965, 1986, etc. and continues to get it wrong. We should take his statements and somehow use them against him now in this debate.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)

"Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. 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 upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically 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. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)

Why should we believe anything this man says about reforming and passing new illegal immigration laws now? He sure got it wrong in 1965, 1986, etc. and continues to get it wrong.

You are so right Skippy. He was a liar then and he is a liar now.