U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-03-2016, 03:25 AM
 
11,998 posts, read 3,295,186 times
Reputation: 3625

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Not you personally, unless I take a peek at your post history and see otherwise, but others who think like you on this board are advocating for immigration rules in effect before the 1965 Immigration Act, which only allowed for white immigration to the US.
No, the immigration law before the 1965 changes required required national origins quotas. If the US was historically ~85% European white, then the immigration allowed should reflect that and maintain the demographics. I am not in favor of any more immigration, least of all mass, demographic changing 90% non-European immigration that the 1965 Act created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2016, 06:19 AM
TKO
 
Location: On the Border
2,147 posts, read 2,804,831 times
Reputation: 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
If the US was historically ~85% European white, then the immigration allowed should reflect that and maintain the demographics.
Why? The state I live in has and has had a plurality of Hispanics since they became more populous than the Native Americans. Should we have a different quota than your state? Many states today, weren't even states in the mid 1800's. Some weren't even in this country. How does your plan deal with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2016, 06:24 AM
 
10,455 posts, read 4,103,389 times
Reputation: 14696
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Now aren't you throwing stones in glass houses with that statement of yours?
He probably never counted on Trump going to Mexico if Hillary declined. When Hillary declined and Trump accepted the invitation, Nieto was forced to accommodate Trump, and without Hillary there, it turned into a personal meeting between the two of them, making Nieto look like a fool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2016, 12:55 PM
 
11,998 posts, read 3,295,186 times
Reputation: 3625
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO View Post
Why? The state I live in has and has had a plurality of Hispanics since they became more populous than the Native Americans. Should we have a different quota than your state? Many states today, weren't even states in the mid 1800's. Some weren't even in this country. How does your plan deal with that?

Because immigration law is constitutionally a US congress power not a state and local, and we're talking national origins quotas and not state, county and city quotas,.


The national origins quota would be based on the US census. I'd say the 1960 census since the 1965 immigration act was presented erroneously or fraudulently. But I would accept 1970, 1980 or heck any year would be better than a completely demographic changing one.


I can't make much sense of your post. No state or territory in what's now the US had a plurality of Hispanics and not American Indians since being won, purchased and claimed except Puerto rico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2016, 01:28 PM
TKO
 
Location: On the Border
2,147 posts, read 2,804,831 times
Reputation: 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
I can't make much sense of your post. No state or territory in what's now the US had a plurality of Hispanics and not American Indians since being won, purchased and claimed except Puerto rico.
I did get myself twisted around with that sentence, sorry.

For three states, share of Hispanic population returns to the past | Pew Research Center
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2016, 02:33 PM
 
11,998 posts, read 3,295,186 times
Reputation: 3625
The modern border with Mexico was agreed upon in 1848. Around 80,000 Mexican citizen who chose to remain north of the border were given citizenship. So for a few decades after 1848 Hispanics outnumbered Anglos in some areas of the Southwest, but not Amerindians. But why the SW is becoming plurality Hispanic now is from illegal immigration and mass legal immigration. It's being essentially reclaimed by Mexico mostly by more recent illegal immigration and birthright citizenship and mass legal immigration.


None of that has any real bearing on US census and demographics from 1790, immigration quotas, and national origins quotas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2016, 04:33 PM
 
31,634 posts, read 14,607,060 times
Reputation: 8430
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
The modern border with Mexico was agreed upon in 1848. Around 80,000 Mexican citizen who chose to remain north of the border were given citizenship. So for a few decades after 1848 Hispanics outnumbered Anglos in some areas of the Southwest, but not Amerindians. But why the SW is becoming plurality Hispanic now is from illegal immigration and mass legal immigration. It's being essentially reclaimed by Mexico mostly by more recent illegal immigration and birthright citizenship and mass legal immigration.


None of that has any real bearing on US census and demographics from 1790, immigration quotas, and national origins quotas.
You're absolutely correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2016, 09:44 AM
 
13,482 posts, read 9,612,863 times
Reputation: 17435
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
No, the immigration law before the 1965 changes required required national origins quotas. If the US was historically ~85% European white, then the immigration allowed should reflect that and maintain the demographics. I am not in favor of any more immigration, least of all mass, demographic changing 90% non-European immigration that the 1965 Act created.
I don't think there are enough white Europeans to even keep up that demographic in Europe. Declining birth rates are part of what initially led France and Germany to allow in many more immigrants. Unfortunately, it ended up in a huge culture clash ( We all know why, so let's not go there.) And most Europeans are not interested in moving here. Except maybe from the Eastern Bloc, and based on my friend's experiences with those immigrants in Brooklyn, you don't really want them here.

Skin color is not the end-all, be-all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2016, 11:48 AM
 
31,634 posts, read 14,607,060 times
Reputation: 8430
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal View Post
I don't think there are enough white Europeans to even keep up that demographic in Europe. Declining birth rates are part of what initially led France and Germany to allow in many more immigrants. Unfortunately, it ended up in a huge culture clash ( We all know why, so let's not go there.) And most Europeans are not interested in moving here. Except maybe from the Eastern Bloc, and based on my friend's experiences with those immigrants in Brooklyn, you don't really want them here.

Skin color is not the end-all, be-all.

It's not about skin color or race it is about retaining our identifying culture and language. Do the Chinese for example want to become culturally non-Asian by too much legal and illegal immigration?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2016, 12:20 PM
 
11,998 posts, read 3,295,186 times
Reputation: 3625
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal View Post
I don't think there are enough white Europeans to even keep up that demographic in Europe. Declining birth rates are part of what initially led France and Germany to allow in many more immigrants. Unfortunately, it ended up in a huge culture clash ( We all know why, so let's not go there.) And most Europeans are not interested in moving here. Except maybe from the Eastern Bloc, and based on my friend's experiences with those immigrants in Brooklyn, you don't really want them here.

Skin color is not the end-all, be-all.

There's hardly one true or accurate sentence in your post.


Demographics doesn't depend on population number or birthrate. I was talking about the US not Europe. Declining birthrates was NOT the reason for the 1965 Immigration Act. The reason given was it discriminatory to restrict immigration from outside Western Europe. The US didn't need more immigration and certainly didn't need it from other cultures. I don't want more population growth or European immigration either from north, east, west or south. Although immigration from the historic source of most American stock British Isle and NW Europe would be more culturally compatible.


Genetics is the end-all, be-all because it has a hand in culture, compatibility and interchangeability. And explains why two cultures are different and always will be. Blending together, one culture seeks dominance over the other and the result is usually an altered culture. It's a fallacy to think natural selection and evolution only work on the outward appearance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top