Is that what happened between approximately 1880 to 1910 when millions of mostly poor Europeans immigrated to the U.S.? Of course those were white people, so it is different, isn’t it?

“Following the Civil War, the floodgates opened once more, and between 1865 and 1910 about 25 million immigrants entered the United States. Those immigrants also changed the ethnic character of the United States, even more profoundly than had the Irish. For large numbers of the immigrants in the late 19th century and early 20th century came from areas which had seen few immigrants to the United States before. They came from Poland, Russia, Romania, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Turkey and many other southern and eastern European nations. Like the Irish, they tended to ghettoize themselves into communities, many of which remain to this day. There are still parts of the United States where one can hear Swedish, Italian, Polish, Yiddish and many other languages spoken in the streets. The new immigrants filled up the cities faster than they could be accommodated with comfort and found themselves jammed into tenements, crowded apartments and shoddy houses with few sanitary facilities at all. In 1880 in New York City a majority of the population did not speak English. The worst slums in the world were supposed to have existed in Chicago. And yet they continued to come in pursuit of what has been called the American dream.

America has always needed cheap labor, and that provided much of the impetus for immigration, as it still does. In the last decades on the 19 century the building of the transcontinental railroads demanded huge numbers of laborers, and it was Irish and Italians and Chinese who did much of that work. By 1910 United States had over 200,000 miles of railroads, about as much as the rest of the world combined, and when that great building boom subsided, the immigrants remained.

Since most of the Chinese who came to the country to work had been males, and few came with families, when the railroads were finished, they found themselves living in ghettos in the western cities with little female companionship. The social problems which arose from that were predictable, and the American response was to pass laws to restrict and discriminate against those of Asian ethnicity.

Since much of the wealth in the nation was consolidated in the hands of predominantly white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, the social tensions that resulted from immigration and the great disparity in wealth that grew larger in the age of industrialization were multiplied. In the 1920s the doors began to close for a time. Severe restrictions were placed upon immigration, and a quota system was established whereby those who were admitted to the United States were most likely to gain entry if they were of the ethnic groups already well-established here. When an annual quota of 150,000 for immigration was established (as opposed to years when almost a million had entered) approximately 60% of those allowed to enter the country had to come from Germany and the British Isles. The rest of the world had to divvy up to 40% left over. As World War II approached an international troubles multiplied, immigration slowed once more, only to begin again after the war when millions of displaced persons, wartime refugees far from their homes, sought new beginnings her and elsewhere.”

http://www.sagehistory.net/gildedage/immigration.htm

What is “illegal” immigration but arbitrary standards created by racist politicians supported by their racist electorate.

Now Republicans just don’t like mostly darker Spanish-speaking people. But notice in the article, “In 1880 in New York City a majority of the population did not speak English.”

Is that what happened between approximately 1880 to 1910 when millions of mostly poor Europeans immigrated to the U.S.? Of course those were white people, so it is different, isn’t it?

“Following the Civil War, the floodgates opened once more, and between 1865 and 1910 about 25 million immigrants entered the United States. Those immigrants also changed the ethnic character of the United States, even more profoundly than had the Irish. For large numbers of the immigrants in the late 19th century and early 20th century came from areas which had seen few immigrants to the United States before. They came from Poland, Russia, Romania, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Turkey and many other southern and eastern European nations. Like the Irish, they tended to ghettoize themselves into communities, many of which remain to this day. There are still parts of the United States where one can hear Swedish, Italian, Polish, Yiddish and many other languages spoken in the streets. The new immigrants filled up the cities faster than they could be accommodated with comfort and found themselves jammed into tenements, crowded apartments and shoddy houses with few sanitary facilities at all. In 1880 in New York City a majority of the population did not speak English. The worst slums in the world were supposed to have existed in Chicago. And yet they continued to come in pursuit of what has been called the American dream.

America has always needed cheap labor, and that provided much of the impetus for immigration, as it still does. In the last decades on the 19 century the building of the transcontinental railroads demanded huge numbers of laborers, and it was Irish and Italians and Chinese who did much of that work. By 1910 United States had over 200,000 miles of railroads, about as much as the rest of the world combined, and when that great building boom subsided, the immigrants remained.

Since most of the Chinese who came to the country to work had been males, and few came with families, when the railroads were finished, they found themselves living in ghettos in the western cities with little female companionship. The social problems which arose from that were predictable, and the American response was to pass laws to restrict and discriminate against those of Asian ethnicity.

Since much of the wealth in the nation was consolidated in the hands of predominantly white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, the social tensions that resulted from immigration and the great disparity in wealth that grew larger in the age of industrialization were multiplied. In the 1920s the doors began to close for a time. Severe restrictions were placed upon immigration, and a quota system was established whereby those who were admitted to the United States were most likely to gain entry if they were of the ethnic groups already well-established here. When an annual quota of 150,000 for immigration was established (as opposed to years when almost a million had entered) approximately 60% of those allowed to enter the country had to come from Germany and the British Isles. The rest of the world had to divvy up to 40% left over. As World War II approached an international troubles multiplied, immigration slowed once more, only to begin again after the war when millions of displaced persons, wartime refugees far from their homes, sought new beginnings her and elsewhere.”

http://www.sagehistory.net/gildedage/immigration.htm

What is “illegal” immigration but arbitrary standards created by racist politicians supported by their racist electorate.

Now Republicans just don’t like mostly darker Spanish-speaking people. But notice in the article, “In 1880 in New York City a majority of the population did not speak English.”

First one.

Second one.

The gist of my post was that open borders advocates don’t look at the obvious costs like a lot of American construction workers, ie skilled blue collar workers, losing their jobs to cheaper, more desparate labor. Libertarians tend to be richer by a wide margin and will only be perceived as elitist on a level worse than left-liberals if they don’t face up to the fact that millions of cheap workers flooding our labor market is bound to depress wages.

Additionally, open borders people tend to attack anyone who calls for immigration restrictions that are healthy racist xenophobes. Few people would have any problems granting worker visas to several hundred thousand migrant workers if need be so that they could work legally, openly and be assured fair legal protection. The migrant workers are only a minority, though. Illegals are taking jobs ranging from fast food to federal contract work repairing warships these days.

When I go back to rural Virginia from Northern Virginia, I see working class Americans of all races doing the jobs that illegals and questionables do in Northern Virginia. It is a very real issue for them, unlike the wealthy of Northern Virginia and other areas. As I have pointed out in the past, these people are more likely to lose their job to an illegal than benefit from the illegal’s labor. If you want them to actually understand that liberty means something for them too, you are going to have to bite the bullet and control immigration while you bring down the welfare-warfare state.

I have always wondered, though, at what point there is “too much immigration” to open borders supporters. Wouldn’t America be great if we extended a worker visa to literally every single poor person on Earth who could get here? No restrictions, period. If 300,000,000 can arrive over the course of a decade, thus doubling our population in a decade, the more the merrier right? And no wiggling there. Open borders by definition means that you have no right to object to any number, even if it would amount to a culture-killing migration of workers.

First one.

Second one.

The gist of my post was that open borders advocates don’t look at the obvious costs like a lot of American construction workers, ie skilled blue collar workers, losing their jobs to cheaper, more desparate labor. Libertarians tend to be richer by a wide margin and will only be perceived as elitist on a level worse than left-liberals if they don’t face up to the fact that millions of cheap workers flooding our labor market is bound to depress wages.

Additionally, open borders people tend to attack anyone who calls for immigration restrictions that are healthy racist xenophobes. Few people would have any problems granting worker visas to several hundred thousand migrant workers if need be so that they could work legally, openly and be assured fair legal protection. The migrant workers are only a minority, though. Illegals are taking jobs ranging from fast food to federal contract work repairing warships these days.

When I go back to rural Virginia from Northern Virginia, I see working class Americans of all races doing the jobs that illegals and questionables do in Northern Virginia. It is a very real issue for them, unlike the wealthy of Northern Virginia and other areas. As I have pointed out in the past, these people are more likely to lose their job to an illegal than benefit from the illegal’s labor. If you want them to actually understand that liberty means something for them too, you are going to have to bite the bullet and control immigration while you bring down the welfare-warfare state.

I have always wondered, though, at what point there is “too much immigration” to open borders supporters. Wouldn’t America be great if we extended a worker visa to literally every single poor person on Earth who could get here? No restrictions, period. If 300,000,000 can arrive over the course of a decade, thus doubling our population in a decade, the more the merrier right? And no wiggling there. Open borders by definition means that you have no right to object to any number, even if it would amount to a culture-killing migration of workers.

I am with Jim here–the Bill of Rights is a clear set of principles, which has proved its worth, and utmost caution is required when thinking of modifying such a basic document. I don’t see any reason for modifying the Bill of Rights. Although, note, I don’t fall into your class of people ‘of libertarian leaning’* although I don’t understand why only the thoughts of members of that class of people are held out for special consideration. The Alien and Sedition Acts and the DMCA are just examples of road kill for the Bill of Rights. (I am being hopeful in the case of DMCA) The National ID card, I hope, will be another one. I would suggest you read the editorial in the current issue of 2600, BTW. The theme was who should we blame.

I don’t like discussion of a Bill of Rights II because that process would surely end up getting hijacked by those who want to limit freedom, not to protect it.

While the pro-choice camp has had there travails (recent legislation in SD for example) generally the courts have done a good job protecting rights when laws have over-reached on this issue, IMHO.

The immigration debate is very complex issue, but one point needs to be made here: it is an issue in which we are reminded that we are part of a larger network, and what happens in the USA will affect what happens in Mexico, and we overlook our connections and our responsibility at our OWN peril. Jorge Castaneda has had some interesting thoughts over at Project Syndicate. He’s had consistently thoughtful articles there, and I really hope he has a future in Mexican politics.

I am with Jim here–the Bill of Rights is a clear set of principles, which has proved its worth, and utmost caution is required when thinking of modifying such a basic document. I don’t see any reason for modifying the Bill of Rights. Although, note, I don’t fall into your class of people ‘of libertarian leaning’* although I don’t understand why only the thoughts of members of that class of people are held out for special consideration. The Alien and Sedition Acts and the DMCA are just examples of road kill for the Bill of Rights. (I am being hopeful in the case of DMCA) The National ID card, I hope, will be another one. I would suggest you read the editorial in the current issue of 2600, BTW. The theme was who should we blame.

I don’t like discussion of a Bill of Rights II because that process would surely end up getting hijacked by those who want to limit freedom, not to protect it.

While the pro-choice camp has had there travails (recent legislation in SD for example) generally the courts have done a good job protecting rights when laws have over-reached on this issue, IMHO.

The immigration debate is very complex issue, but one point needs to be made here: it is an issue in which we are reminded that we are part of a larger network, and what happens in the USA will affect what happens in Mexico, and we overlook our connections and our responsibility at our OWN peril. Jorge Castaneda has had some interesting thoughts over at Project Syndicate. He’s had consistently thoughtful articles there, and I really hope he has a future in Mexican politics.

The alternative is to strictly construe the interstate commerce clause in Constitution I so as to restrict the reach of the Federal government, but then (1) the states would almost certainly overreach themselves, so the problem would not really be solved, and (2) lots of parts of the modern state fall apart. Because of (2), we’re never going to see strict construction of the interstate clause unless other Constitutional provisions are added to explicitly allow some of those modern functions.

What libertarians fail to answer is why not allow literally every unskilled worker to come to America? Wouldn’t America be great if we had another 200 million unskilled workers to put to use? Please don’t take that as a jab against you, Jim, but seriously, when is there enough? At what point do we say to them that we have enough unskilled or barely skilled labor?

What libertarians fail to answer is why not allow literally every unskilled worker to come to America? Wouldn’t America be great if we had another 200 million unskilled workers to put to use? Please don’t take that as a jab against you, Jim, but seriously, when is there enough? At what point do we say to them that we have enough unskilled or barely skilled labor?