Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Historically, no. Immigration didn't have any structure to it for the majority of time the United States had immigrants coming here. And for someone that relates the borders as "wide-open" today, there would be nothing stopping someone that skirted the administration of new arrivals, and simply set up house where they wanted.
When taken at base motivation, European immigrants in the past came for exactly the same reason as illegal aliens do today. I can't address your wild speculation when it is without reliably sourced data. When your view of history talks about "permission" for immigrants that came at times and paths that were not screened, we would be unable to reach any agreement to this discussion anyway.
Addressing your first paragraph, the early immigrants came within the laws or lack of laws in place at the time. Today we have established laws in place to migrate here so I am not sure what your point is. Are we to revert back to what was a hundred or so years ago even though it is not in the national interest today?
Addressing your second paragraph, I have already mentioned that it is irrelevant what the reasons were that immigrants came here a long time ago as it is irrelevant why illegal immigrants come here today even if for the same reasons. All that matters is that our current immigration laws be followed.
What has race have to do with anything? Are you confused? Did you think you were in the POC forum where all the racist threads are??
You seem to be quite the opinionated individual judging from your posts. Seems you think of yourself as the only "smart" member of C-D.
I would have to ask the same question. "Browns" as this person is implying are being discriminated against today is not accurate. If by brown he means Mexicans and other latinos they are here in the highest percentages for legal immigration today so where is the discrimination?
I would have to ask the same question. "Browns" as this person is implying are being discriminated against today is not accurate. If by brown he means Mexicans and other latinos they are here in the highest percentages for legal immigration today so where is the discrimination?
Exactly! In fact, they far outnumber others. But, when lacking a substantive defense, the race card is always handy. After all, few relish the thought of being called a racist.
Again, in reality, MOST immigrants who entered this country during that era came through Ellis Island. They did not sneak into this country. They were questioned by Federal officials, identified, and screened for diseases. Most were granted admission, but some were not. Did some manage to circumvent this process? Absolutely. However, we did not have untold millions entering this country without inspection, and without permission from the U.S. Government. Yes, PERMISSION...
As said previously, all of my lines entered before Ellis Island opened (which isn't all that unusual genealogically), the last in 1887. Castle Garden Immigration Depot preceded Ellis Island, but ships didn't necessarily all land in New York harbor. There is even notable SCOTUS precedent to support SB1070 in the realization that New York state had to implement their own regulation on immigrants when the Federal government was failing to enforce any standards.
Organizations were founded to help immigrants purely on the basis of nationality ("The German Society of New York" and "The Irish Emigrant Society of New York", for examples), in comparison to the current complaints. I stopped reviewing Ellis Island information as my genealogical lines were mapped out, but I am at least aware of its years of operation and methods. To me it is largely used as a misnomer, and potentially suspect when someone generically says all of their ancestors came through there.
This forum has a common theme of thinking only on terms of "sneaking in". Some European countries of that era had laws against their people emigrating, leaving without the permission of their homeland's government. So maybe not necessarily "sneaking in" to the United States, but "sneaking out" of Europe to avoid their obligations or debts.
That puts a crimp in the statement that an immigrant's transit was lawful in its entirety...
As said previously, all of my lines entered before Ellis Island opened (which isn't all that unusual genealogically), the last in 1887. Castle Garden Immigration Depot preceded Ellis Island, but ships didn't necessarily all land in New York harbor. There is even notable SCOTUS precedent to support SB1070 in the realization that New York state had to implement their own regulation on immigrants when the Federal government was failing to enforce any standards.
Organizations were founded to help immigrants purely on the basis of nationality ("The German Society of New York" and "The Irish Emigrant Society of New York", for examples), in comparison to the current complaints. I stopped reviewing Ellis Island information as my genealogical lines were mapped out, but I am at least aware of its years of operation and methods. To me it is largely used as a misnomer, and potentially suspect when someone generically says all of their ancestors came through there.
This forum has a common theme of thinking only on terms of "sneaking in". Some European countries of that era had laws against their people emigrating, leaving without the permission of their homeland's government. So maybe not necessarily "sneaking in" to the United States, but "sneaking out" of Europe to avoid their obligations or debts.
That puts a crimp in the statement that an immigrant's transit was lawful in its entirety...
There are those that did only have their ancestors enter through Ellis Island, so I wouldn't think it would be suspect or a misnomer. Before immigrants were allowed to board the ships heading to America they had to check and verify their documents and be logged in the ships manifest, as per your prior link.
Quote:
In reality, passenger lists were not created at Ellis Island - they were created by the ship's captain or designated representative before the ship departed from its port of origin. Since immigrants would not be accepted into Ellis Island without proper documentation, the shipping companies were very careful to check the immigrant's paperwork (usually completed by a local clerk in the immigrant's homeland) and ensure its accuracy to avoid having to return the immigrant back home at the shipping company's expense.
"Sneaking out" is/was always a possibility, still is today. It wasn't/isn't the US's responsibility to check the lawful leaving of a country, only the lawful entry into the US.
There are those that did only have their ancestors enter through Ellis Island, so I wouldn't think it would be suspect or a misnomer. Before immigrants were allowed to board the ships heading to America they had to check and verify their documents and be logged in the ships manifest, as per ["Benicar's] prior link. "Sneaking out" is/was always a possibility, still is today. It wasn't/isn't the US's responsibility to check the lawful leaving of a country, only the lawful entry into the US.
If it was able to be checked. There were Captains, in particular during the times where they had to pay a "head tax" for each immigrant, that would make a slight detour to the Jersey shore (any modern puns unintended) to offload before making port. Unless there are identifiable processing records for Castle Gardens / Ellis Island / Angel Island (made all the much harder by fires at those facilities), there is not any sort of proof that a specific ancestor came "legally".
I've been able to locate passenger lists containing several of my ancestors and their relatives, but not one landing or immigration processing record for any of them, and that is with years of study...
Exactly! In fact, they far outnumber others. But, when lacking a substantive defense, the race card is always handy. After all, few relish the thought of being called a racist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
I would have to ask the same question. "Browns" as this person is implying are being discriminated against today is not accurate. If by brown he means Mexicans and other latinos they are here in the highest percentages for legal immigration today so where is the discrimination?
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
In reality over 80% of hispanics classify themselves as "white" so yours is a very lame argument - as usual.
And if you paid attention, you would see that La Raza NEVER objects when Haitians are rounded up in Miami.
Some "brown" people are more important than other "brown" people, so says La Raza.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
