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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
