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.
Yes we win the Cold War. It was inevitable. The economy would be about the same size possibly even bigger as indiscriminate immigration increasing population growth is not the only or best way to grow the economy or even the only way to increase the population. The 1965 Immigration Act didn't just or so much increase the number of immigrants, it did reduce immigration from Western Europe and increase it from else where.
1) Every European country is facing a demographic collapse. They aren't having any children. The idea that we would have millions of European immigrants every year if not for the Immigration Act of 1965 is a fantasy. Western Europeans stopped coming here a long time ago. By WWI, only poor Southern and Eastern Europeans still wanted to come here. And today it is only old Soviet countries.
2) The seeming inevitably of China's rise is due to one thing, population. And that rise is also being fueled by endless cheap labor.
3) Immigration to the United States effectively stopped from 1921 till 1965. Since 1965 there have been 60 million immigrants, not including their descendants, who have come to this country. Nearly 20% of the current population are immigrants, and that many more are their descendants.
Nearly all current population growth is from immigration. Without the Immigration Act of 1965, the US population would have stagnated decades ago. Instead of a population of at least 320 million people(not including illegals?) we would have a population of 250 million or less.
If you reduced the US population by 25%, you reduce the size of the economy by 25%. But it is even worse than that. Without cheap labor, we never would have broke the unions. American business would have been choked by high wages. And we most certainly would be more socialist than we are today.
The Immigration Act of 1965 saved capitalism. It saved America.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-25-2021 at 11:19 AM..
1) Every European country is facing a demographic collapse. They aren't having any children. The idea that we would have millions of European immigrants every year if not for the Immigration Act of 1965 is a fantasy. Western Europeans stopped coming here a long time ago. By WWI, only poor Southern and Eastern Europeans still wanted to come here. And today it is only old Soviet countries.
2) The seeming inevitably of China's rise is due to one thing, population. And that rise is also being fueled by endless cheap labor.
3) Immigration to the United States effectively stopped from 1921 till 1965. Since 1965 there have been 60 million immigrants, not including their descendants, who have come to this country. Nearly 20% of the current population are immigrants, and that many more are their descendants.
Nearly all current population growth is from immigration. Without the Immigration Act of 1965, the US population would have stagnated decades ago. Instead of a population of at least 320 million people(not including illegals?) we would have a population of 250 million or less.
If you reduced the US population by 25%, you reduce the size of the economy by 25%. But it is even worse than that. Without cheap labor, we never would have broke the unions. American business would have been choked by high wages. And we most certainly would be more socialist than we are today.
The Immigration Act of 1965 saved capitalism. It saved America.
America would've been fine with less immigration after 1965. The Act did change the make up of immigrants. You are ignoring all the downsides and various negative effects it has. Population size doesn't guarantee economic advancement. India has a high population as do many other 3rd world countries. China doesn't need or even want the population size it has.
America would've been fine with less immigration after 1965. The Act did change the make up of immigrants. You are ignoring all the downsides and various negative effects it has. Population size doesn't guarantee economic advancement. India has a high population as do many other 3rd world countries. China doesn't need or even want the population size it has.
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm explaining why it was done.
Let's pretend the US population was half the size it is today, would that be bad or good? And let's pretend the US population was twice the size it is today, would that be bad or good?
What is the purpose of immigration? What are the national interests of the United States?
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm explaining why it was done.
Let's pretend the US population was half the size it is today, would that be bad or good? And let's pretend the US population was twice the size it is today, would that be bad or good?
What are the national interests of the United States? What is the purpose of immigration?
At the time the Act was debated there was no talk about economics being a reason or population growth. It was denied the Act would bring large numbers of immigrants and alter demographics. It was mostly intended as a symbolic "anti-racists" change and had many unintended consequences. https://www.history.com/topics/immig...ion-since-1965
Quote:
During Congressional debates, a number of experts testified that little would effectively change under the reformed legislation, and it was seen more as a matter of principle to have a more open policy. Indeed, on signing the act into law in October 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that the act “is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions….It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power.â€
To say it was primarily about economics is revisionism.
Believe what you want. I believe it is the in US best interest to reform its immigration and naturalization policies. Just about all our policies since the 1960s have been bad policies.
It's not perfect but it's a heck of an improvement over the old days when Asians were explicitly excluded from immigrating and even being naturalized as citizens.
Apparently the President who ended slavery was insufficiently anti-racist. See NY Times article,Chicago Lists Lincoln Statues Among Monuments to Review, Excerpts below:
Was his ultra-courageous stance against slavery "abysmal" as well. I always thought actions speak louder than words. Or to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson,“Your actions speak so loudly, I can not hear what you are saying.†(link). Even Ulysses S. Grant, who as President had a muscular anti-Jim Crow policy, enforcing black suffrage with troops, is being "canceled." I suppose if the skin color is white it's bad. See also From Alexander Hamilton to Johns Hopkins - The Demolition of Societies' Builders.
Look, if the US slavers would not have accepted the black African importation in the first place, this never would have happened. The economical necessity argument is false. Whites could have worked those fields and the outcome in the long run would have been economically sound and without the racial divisions which will continue forever because of it. Slavery was nothing more than greed, caring nothing about the future stability of the country.
It's not black slaves fault for becoming slaves. And thereafter, it's not black people's fault for the US system of failed race issues. It is though a sure thing that barely one thread on this site can be posted without "blacks" somewhere in the title, or the discussion somehow turns into "blacks, crime, stats... blacks, fraud, welfare..." "blacks, blacks, blacks..." on and on. And then those who post will say it's never about race
It's not perfect but it's a heck of an improvement over the old days when Asians were explicitly excluded from immigrating and even being naturalized as citizens.
Too bad for you that 1959 isn't coming back.
Asians weren't excluded from immigration and naturalization in 1959. But so what? Asian countries exclude non-Asians from immigration and naturalization to this day. A country preferring its own population or maintaining its demographics is perfectly fine.
At the time the Act was debated there was no talk about economics being a reason or population growth. It was denied the Act would bring large numbers of immigrants and alter demographics.
So a politician lied? Do you honestly believe they didn't know exactly what the Immigration Act would do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
To say it was primarily about economics is revisionism.
Who even asked for the Immigration Act? Do you honestly believe "the people" were demanding it? Or do you think some special-interests drafted it, handed it to the democratic party to pass for them, who then attacked anyone who opposed it as racist?
And why did the Republicans overwhelmingly support it?
So a politician lied? Do you honestly believe they didn't know exactly what the Immigration Act would do?
But why deny it was intended or would effect the country wealth and power, which would be about the only valid justification for it
Quote:
Who even asked for the Immigration Act? Do you honestly believe "the people" were demanding it? Or do you think some special-interests drafted it, handed it to the democratic party to pass for them, who then attacked anyone who opposed it as racist?
And why did the Republicans overwhelmingly support it?
I don't believe it had a lot of publicity or public demand but changing immigration law was mentioned some by politicians even President Kennedy as a "racial justice" matter. Who knows the real motives of Hart, Cellar and Ted Kennedy etc. There's reason to believe they had animus toward the more conservative white population and wanted less white immigration.
But why deny it was intended or would effect the country wealth and power, which would be about the only valid justification for it.
The wealth of the United States has nothing to do with the wealth of individual citizens. The country can get richer while the average citizen becomes poorer.
To argue in favor of immigration is to argue in favor of inequality and lower wages so that American corporations can be more profitable relative to their foreign competitors.
That is a pretty hard sell. Much easier to just call everyone racist, and then deny that open-borders will change the demographics of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I don't believe it had a lot of publicity or public demand but changing immigration law was mentioned some by politicians even President Kennedy as a "racial justice" matter. Who knows the real motives of Hart, Cellar and Ted Kennedy etc.
Even though JFK was a democrat, he was very focused on defeating the communists. He even lowered taxes. Probably the only democrat to lower taxes since the 1800's. But what was the reason?
Please tell me, what are the national interests of the United States? And how do the national interests of the United States differ from the national interests of any other country?
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.
