Thread: And NOW They Move ?

I've been reading the Blogs and news stories about "The Increasing Violence at Our Border"... And I almost want to say GOOD!
But, I cant because of my Obligations : My FAMILY/CHILDREN foremost.
I have been a Closed Borders Advocate since the attacks of 9/11, not very long considering many on here have been fighting the same problem for many more years. I have joined the powerful Websites that Lobby for the same things I still believe in, The United States of America just happens to be one of them.
It seems that the United States Government is NOW CONCERNED about the Drug Cartel Violence now crossing over into OUR Country. Why should we be so surprised? They KNEW this day would come!
I came accross an OLD article from 1965, the year Ted Kennedy championed the Immigration Act of 1965... Here is a small portion :

Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.

Yes, THEY KNEW this day would come and they ALL have benefitted from it. We The People are the ones paying the price for THIER GREED!
I'm not sur how many phone calls, letters, e-mails, faxes I have sent over the past 8 years, I only know it has not changed anything.
Today the United States of America has a Commander in Chief who is affraid to show his Birth Certificate, we have a Congress that thinks they can Spend America out of a Recession, we have Corrupt Corporations getting Money from We The People and we have Illegal Immigrants thriving in America, living off the American Taxpayer.
America use to be a GOOD, MORAL COUNTRY! We have forgotten that CORRUPTION IS NOT THE NORM!
Today, I have My Faith, My Family and My Country. But We are ALL losing the latter very quickly, and The Powers That Be... Well they knew all along this situation would happen and they are very content with it. One hundred years ago We The People would have built the Gallows on the Capital steps, and the word TREASON would have still meant something. I'm sorry, I'm tired of not being heard. I still have my Faith, I still have my family... God once Blessed America

This is why we come together now more than ever. WE WILL FIGHT BACK

Patriotofpast do you have a citation for this info?

I came accross an OLD article from 1965, the year Ted Kennedy championed the Immigration Act of 1965... Here is a small portion :

Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.

How is the best way to fight back now? The illegal aliens just keep having more and more anchor children and we give them U.S citizenship. Their mothers are never identified as illegal by e-verify because they aren't working.
It is easy to feel discouraged but I know we can never give up fighting.

The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 12/10/2002

America's current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50's, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924. Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture. In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened. So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.

Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of "racism" and "imperialism," they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack "discrimination," did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.

****Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone. *****

The 1965 "reform" reoriented policy away from European ethnic groups, yet implemented numbers similar to 1950's rates in an attempt to keep immigration under control. However, Congressmen managed to miss a loophole large enough to allow a 300 percent in immigration, because they did not take into account two "sentimental" provisions within the bill. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and political refugees face no quotas. Their likely impact on the nation was ignored, presumably because aiding families and the dispossessed cast the right emotive glow.

Yet leftists could sound like hard-nosed defenders of the national interest when necessary. In urging passage of the 1965 bill, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, D-New York, wrote in a letter to the New York Times, "The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system." As if merit is the operative principle along the Rio Grande today! Similarly, Representative Robert Sweeney, D-Ohio, insisted the bill was "more beneficial to us." In fact, the 1965 bill made "family reunification" - including extended family members - the key criterion for eligibility. These new citizens may in turn send for their families, creating an endless cycle known to sociologists as the immigration chain. The qualifications of immigrants have predictably fallen. Hispanic immigrants, by far the largest contingent, are eight times more likely than natives to lack a ninth-grade education, and less than half as likely to have a college degree.

The bill did not end discrimination based on what President John F. Kennedy called "the accident of birth." (This of course begs the question of whether birth within the nation, the basis of common national community, is just an accident, but let that pass for now.) It de facto grossly discriminates in favor of Mexicans and certain other groups.

Not only has the bill failed in its stated purpose, it has realized many of its critics' worst nightmares. Concern mounted that this bill would radically change the ethnic composition of the United States. Such things were still considered legitimate concerns in 1965, in the same Congress that had just passed the key civil rights legislation of the 1960's.

Specific influx predictions that were made seem tragicomic today. Senator Robert Kennedy predicted a total of 5,000 immigrants from India; his successor as Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, foresaw a meager 8,000. Actual immigration from India has exceeded by 1,000-times Robert Kennedy's prediction.

Senator Hiram Fong, R-Hawaii, calculated that "the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population." Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for three percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)

The only remaining Congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler, D-New York, insisted, "There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country." Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.

Yet the largest ethnic shift has occurred within the ranks of Hispanics. Despite Robert Kennedy's promise that, "Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total," Mexico sent 20 percent of last year's immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968. After a 30-year experiment with open borders, whites no longer constitute a majority of Californians or residents of New York City.

As immigrants pour in, native Americans feel themselves pushed out. In 1965, Senator Hugh Scott, R-Pennsylvania, opined, "I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states." Yet half-a-million native Californians fled the state in the last decade, while its total population increased by three million, mostly immigrants. This phenomenon also holds true in microcosm. In tiny Ligonier, Indiana, (population 4,357) 914 Hispanics moved in and 216 native Americans departed during the 1990s. Hispanics now outnumber the Amish as the area's dominant minority.

Thirty-plus years of immigration at historic levels have also had an economic impact on America. In 1965, Ted Kennedy confidently predicted, "No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge." However, political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil. The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is largely welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin's 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty.

Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments "will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. What is presently undisputed - except by the same economic analysts at Wired magazine and the Wall Street Journal who gave us dot-com stocks - is that immigrant participation lowers wages.

Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill's supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be "genocidal," a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them, the norms in their hometowns, are debased for the convenience of low-paid immigrants and well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.

These results were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by their emotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas. The B'nai B'rith Women and the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewish organizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet in subcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigration on the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.

Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today's population is the result of yesterday's immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers' assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of "prejudice" and "tribalism."
Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and co-author, with David Horowitz, of the book Party of Defeat. He is also the author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry's Charitable Giving.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... aspx?GUID={55D115DA-C68A-40B5-831C-6071D194CE83}

I, as well as many others, can relate to your frustration.

What keeps me motivated at this juncture is the conviction that things are reaching critical mass for the majority of Americans. It's barely contestable that our leaders are running amok most of the time. Perhaps the chaos is calculated.... I just don't know. I do believe, however, that this situation presents an opportunity for us to further galvanize some of our fellow citizens who, heretofore, were reluctant to join our cause. The current administration's penchant for both brazenness and stealth on the immigration issue requires constant vigilance on our part.

The economic argument, i.e. loss of jobs to illegals, is an unassailable one, and I use it all the time with fence sitters, particularly with my own family(a few of whom hire many employees). I also like to emphasize how uncontrolled immigration will drastically transform the political landscape in our country in the coming years. This effect was already evident in the last Presidential election, but it will also impact elections all the way down to the local level in every state.

I get very frustrated and angry at times, but the above concerns provide the impetus I need to soldier on.

Originally Posted by working4change

Patriotofpast do you have a citation for this info?

I came accross an OLD article from 1965, the year Ted Kennedy championed the Immigration Act of 1965... Here is a small portion :

Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.

This is a link to the story, I hope it boils your blood as it did mine...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... aspx?GUID={55D115DA-C68A-40B5-831C-6071D194CE83}

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

Originally Posted by working4change

Patriotofpast do you have a citation for this info?

I came accross an OLD article from 1965, the year Ted Kennedy championed the Immigration Act of 1965... Here is a small portion :

Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.

This is a link to the story, I hope it boils your blood as it did mine...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... aspx?GUID={55D115DA-C68A-40B5-831C-6071D194CE83}

Thanks...yep it boils my blood alright ! Thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by Saki

I, as well as many others, can relate to your frustration.

What keeps me motivated at this juncture is the conviction that things are reaching critical mass for the majority of Americans.

Exactly right. This is a very important time in American history. We will be faced with challenges that will force us to make tough decisions. Right now, we are standing at the fork in the road. Once path leads to destruction, and the other path to peace and prosperity. We must work together to protect us from tyranny and opression, and save the sovereignty of America.