Law Trump official: Statue of Liberty poem refers to Europeans

[MikeMcMann]

I was responding to someone who said that low immigration during that time was intended to keep America a white-majority racist country. I pointed out that America did great at the time, and increasingly pushed for civil rights as well, so that was obviously not the intention, nor the outcome. Never had the black man in America seen as much progress in previous times, as he did after WW2 events. Never has America been as driven by the "working man", as it was during that time.

As @Rational Poster said, the reasons as to why immigration was low, had more to do with economic depression, war-time activity and Cold War tensions, than some sort of a "race quota" that was imposed by the U.S., to keep the country "white".

Anyway, you're just starting to increasingly sound like a grumpy old man who is more interested in calling people names than honestly arguing a point, so I'll probably just leave you to your little gimmick. You can play that "game" with somebody else. I have no patience for it.

many other people have pointed out how your attempt at a reductionist argument 'look low immigration = wealth' without regard for time and circumstance is just stupid so no more time need be spent on it.

You tried to distort a singular fact without context to make a broader argument and fit it to justify Trumps new plan to greatly reduce immigrants and got exposed. Time to move on.

Trumps goal is to choke down immigration period. Why? because the vast number of immigrants in THIS wave are ethnics. If the vast number were Norwegians Trump would welcome them.

 

[TheGreatA]

Oh there was absolutely racist immigration policy at that time and proceeding it, don't get it twisted.

IIRC it even explicitly said things like no Mexicans or Chinese which is why we've seen almost no legal immigration from those places till recent decades.

Even the current state of drug policy of draconian federal marijuana laws can be traced back to racist policy that was mean to target Mexicans.

So which was it, the racist policy or the circumstances that kept the immigrants out of America, at the time?

 

[MikeMcMann]

...

I sometimes wonder if people even read my posts, or if they just gloss over them, until they find something convenient to dig into.

the problem you have is that people DO read them and don't just gloss over them. You play the game of making one point or correlation that is correct, and hope you get a Fox News type gloss over focusing and repeating that point only. But, sadly for you, people actually address the points you make and then none of them stand up.

 

[Rational Poster]

So which was it, the racist policy or the circumstances that kept the immigrants out of America, at the time?

How about all of the above, plus probably more factors we haven't discussed.

Trying to boil down such a complex issue to cater to your own bias isn't going to work with me.

 

[TheGreatA]

many other people have pointed out how your attempt at a reductionist argument 'look low immigration = wealth' without regard for time and circumstance is just stupid so no more time need be spent on it.

You tried to distort a singular fact without context to make a broader argument and fit it to justify Trumps new plan to greatly reduce immigrants and got exposed. Time to move on.

Trumps goal is to choke down immigration period. Why? because the vast number of immigrants in THIS wave are ethnics. If the vast number were Norwegians Trump would welcome them.

As usual, you just create a straw-man argument of your own to argue against, and basically ignore everything that I've been actually saying.

I never even mentioned Trump. I have no idea if he's trying to greatly reduce the number of immigrants, the last I heard, he wants to bring in "millions of immigrants". If his goal is to choke down on immigration, then he hasn't done much of a job, considering that he has deported less people than Obama, and immigration hasn't decreased at all, last I've looked.

As I said, there will never be a vast number of Norwegians coming to America. So you don't need to worry about it. When it comes to that, I'll point you back towards this post:

Newsflash, there are never going to be masses coming in from 1st world countries. So you don't have to worry a bout that.

The mass-movements will be coming in from countries that are at war, or suffer from high level of crime and government corruption, or outright tyranny. Yes, most of the people will be looking to escape rather than re-create these conditions, but not all. It is the duty of a state to protect both the immigrants, as well as the citizens, from anyone that might be looking to bring about the same problems, that already made these people's conditions so desperate, to where they saw no choice but to escape. To ask these people to re-live the horrors in their communities, to deal with the same scum whom they escaped from, is lunacy.

Any sensible government will prepare itself to counter the possible negative influences coming in, such as crime gangs, foreign provocateurs, or anti-American extremists/terrorists. The naive buffoons who cannot handle that, who are too mentally soft to acknowledge the darker aspects of humanity, ought to keep their hands out of the process. They will only bring about ruin, to both the immigrant as well as the native citizen.

Nothing destroys the reputation of a Muslim community more, than bringing in some jihadi fucks.
Nothing destroys the reputation of a Mexican community more, than bringing in some drug cartel scum.

One terror attack can undo a century of good-will, between populations.

That's the reality of it, and rational immigrants understand this, which is why they won't be in favour of the open borders, "see nothing, do nothing" bullshit.

The poems are fine, the ideals are fine, but countries are run based on pragmatism rather than the sentimental outbursts of a daydreamer.

 

[MikeMcMann]

As usual, you just create a straw-man argument of your own to argue against, and basically ignore everything that I've been actually saying.

I never even mentioned Trump. I have no idea if he's trying to greatly reduce the number of immigrants, the last I heard, he wants to bring in "millions of immigrants". If his goal is to choke down on immigration, then he hasn't done much of a job, considering that he has deported less people than Obama, and immigration hasn't decreased at all, last I've looked.

As I said, there will never be a vast number of Norwegians coming to America. So you don't need to worry about it. When it comes to that, I'll point you back towards this post:

LOL. Stop the trolling.

Ya no one loves the environment like Trump, he says so and therefore he will only do things to protect it.

No one has more respect for Women than Trump, he says so therefore his time with prostitutes and porn stars while his wife was pregnant is an illusion.

No one is less racist on the planet than Trump, he says so, therefore all this you see is just fake news.

And no one wants more immigrants to come in to the USA than Trump, and even as he enacts a measure that would eliminate the eligibility of the vast, vast majority of applicants and only leave a small narrow group of wealthier applicants, that is just another illusion. Because Trump says he wants lots more immigrants.


Trump knows he has the stupidest followers and therefore he can one thing, while doing the exact opposite and they will say 'but... but... he said...' FLOL.

The reason Trump is deporting less than Obama is because he wants to MANUFACTURE a crisis so he can scream "CRISIS' and then say he is the only one who can fix it. If they are being processed and sent home as Obama did then the pile up at the border alleviates and people are not as concerned. Trump wants to back as many up at the border as he can, so he can point to them and raise fear amongst useful idiots.

 

[TheGreatA]

How about all of the above, plus probably more factors we haven't discussed.

Trying to boil down such a complex issue to cater to your own bias isn't going to work with me.

I have no problem acknowledging all of these factors, provided that there is evidence that they indeed played a factor.

I do have a probable cause to doubt that a Communist China would've even allowed any Chinese to immigrate into the U.S. at the time, so in the end, whether the Chinese were allowed into America or not, probably did not play much of a part in the immigration statistics. In general, nobody was getting out of Communist countries, unless they were sent on a mission, that was how they operated.

From what I understand, Mexican workers were allowed into America at the time, under the Bracero program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program

 

[TheGreatA]

LOL. Stop the trolling.

Ya no one loves the environment like Trump, he says so and therefore he will only do things to protect it.

No one has more respect for Women than Trump, he says so therefore his time with prostitutes and porn stars while his wife was pregnant is an illusion.

No one is less racist on the planet than Trump, he says so, therefore all this you see is just fake news.

And no one wants more immigrants to come in to the USA than Trump, and even as he enacts a measure that would eliminate the eligibility of the vast, vast majority of applicants and only leave a small narrow group of wealthier applicants, that is just another illusion. Because Trump says he wants lots more immigrants.


Trump knows he has the stupidest followers and therefore he can one thing, while doing the exact opposite and they will say 'but... but... he said...' FLOL.

The reason Trump is deporting less than Obama is because he wants to MANUFACTURE a crisis so he can scream "CRISIS' and then say he is the only one who can fix it. If they are being processed and sent home as Obama did then the pile up at the border alleviates and people are not as concerned. Trump wants to back as many up at the border as he can, so he can point to them and raise fear amongst useful idiots.

You know, I could act like you, and call this merely a conspiracy theory, but I can atleast give credit where it is due. It's not a half-bad theory. You might even be right.

But I don't see how this has anything to do with the points that I made, again. I'm not talking about Donald Trump. You, on the other hand, seem hell-bent on making it about Trump, because you obviously can't wait to relieve your frustrations against your president.

Maybe you need to be doing that on somebody else's time. Someone, who frankly, gives more of a shit about your president, than I do.

I called this guy for the jackass he was, the moment he put himself up for election. So it's not like anything that you're saying, is news to me.

 

[avenue94]

I did not imply that America was the only country to come through a depression during that time, the poster I was responding to, was making claims of sustained economic growth for America coming into that war, when in fact they had been in a deep depression for a very long time.

I also did not ignore the importance of America being the only major power "untouched" (even though realistically they were not untouched, as they invested heavily into Europe and even the USSR). What I said, was that it is not the only factor as to why America became the most powerful country in the world. Many had predicted they would, prior to the war, if America ever "woke up". Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, they all held the same view, that America was the sleeping giant, with enormous productive potential that had not yet been fully taken advantage of.

What you seem to ignore is that despite demographic losses, USSR covered by conquering large amounts of territory, having an enormous baby boom, and establishing satellite-states that paid homage to them. They were a force to be reckoned with, in the post-WW2 era. The reason they ended up taking a back-seat to America, was not WW2, but because America was simply greater. They had better policies, they offered greater freedoms, they had more cultural influence, and ultimately, they were more creative than the mechanical Soviets.

I sometimes wonder if people even read my posts, or if they just gloss over them, until they find something convenient to dig into.

Investing money has nothing to do with being untouched by the war. Two distinct issues, and if anything being able to invest resources suggests being relatively untouched.
Soviet shortcomings has a lot to do with being unable to match the US, but you grossly underestimate how much losing tens of millions of working age men will cripple your economy structuralmy. The other main shortcoming of Russia as a great power has always been shitty navies.

Bottom line, what great power came out of the war in better shape than the US, or even in anytjing resembling how untouched America was?

 

[panamaican]

Russia is technically in Europe (not that I agree with this). He didn't retconn the history of anything, and his comments didn't bear on the statue (or slavery) at all. He offered his interpretation of the poem's primary group of reference, and that's correct.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpim1.htm


Did you drink the Kool-Aid before actually listening to or reading what he said? Shame, Pan.

Why are you quoting me some random opinion on immigration instead on the person who actually wrote the poem? You should know that the statue had nothing to do with immigration at the time of the poem. The poem itself had nothing to do with immigration. All the immiigration stuff came years later.

The person who wrote the poem was not referring exclusively to Europeans when she wrote a poem to be placed on a statue that existed to partially celebrate the end of slavery. Just take a moment on that - "Hey write a poem for this anti-slavery friendship statue." "Sure, I'll make it about European immigration...even though the statue has nothing to do with immigration."

And Russia is also in Asia and was there at the time of the poem.

So, no, this guy can't retcon the statue or the poem into anything about immigration because that wasn't the context at the time of the writing.

 

[TheGreatA]

Investing money has nothing to do with being untouched by the war. Two distinct issues, and if anything being able to invest resources suggests being relatively untouched.
Soviet shortcomings has a lot to do with being unable to match the US, but you grossly underestimate how much losing tens of millions of working age men will cripple your economy structuralmy. The other main shortcoming of Russia as a great power has always been shitty navies.

Bottom line, what great power came out of the war in better shape than the US, or even in anytjing resembling how untouched America was?

Well, Britain didn't actually take much of a beating in that war (demographic-wise or infrastructure-wise), compared to the rest of Europe that is, but they were on the decline at the time, anyway.

Soviets lost a lot but gained a lot, also, they conquered half of Europe, and made much of the rest of it, their bitches. So despite their demographic losses, they gained millions and millions of new citizens for the Soviet Unions, from states which they conquered, as well as puppet states which they controlled. And as usual, the resources were directed into Moscow. It also helps that they involved pretty much everybody into the work-force, including women.

By 1950's, the USSR had a 200+ million population, which exceeded that of America's.

As I said, America benefited from post-WW2 era world order, but it wasn't a free lunch because the USSR also positioned itself well after the war, despite the losses they took.

 

[Rational Poster]

I have no problem acknowledging all of these factors, provided that there is evidence that they indeed played a factor.

I do have a probable cause to doubt that a Communist China would've even allowed any Chinese to immigrate into the U.S. at the time, so in the end, whether the Chinese were allowed into America or not, probably did not play much of a part in the immigration statistics. In general, nobody was getting out of Communist countries, unless they were sent on a mission, that was how they operated.

From what I understand, Mexican workers were allowed into America at the time, under the Bracero program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program

Sorry, but your history is just off.

Communist China wasn't even a thing in the immediate post war period, and America was direct allies with the existing Kuomintang government, and remain allied to this day to the Taiwanese government which is the direct successor of the Kuomintang.. We provided Asia with billions in aid and materials during the post war period. The reality is people just weren't moving around during that period. They were reclaiming, rebuilding, and consolidating power all over the world and this was all fueled with US foreign aid. There was just less incentive to immigrate and less capacity to allow it. Countries were devastated everywhere, there was plenty of opportunity to go around.


In regards to Mexico, workers are not immigrants, they were never allowed to stay and were never allowed to be citizens. This program was also followed by the explicitly racist Operation Wetback too, you know, right?

 

[Madmick]

Why are you quoting me some random opinion on immigration instead on the person who actually wrote the poem? You should know that the statue had nothing to do with immigration at the time of the poem. The poem itself had nothing to do with immigration.

The person who wrote the poem was not referring exclusively to Europeans when she wrote a poem to be placed on a statue that existed to partially celebrate the end of slavery. Just take a moment on that - "Hey write a poem for this anti-slavery friendship statue." "Sure, I'll make it about European immigration...even though the statue has nothing to do with immigration."

The poem had nothing to do with immigrants? Where in the fuck do you get this shit, man? Does your brain just shut down the moment the "racism" invective gets hurled?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus#History_of_the_poem

This poem was written as a donation to an auction of art and literary works[3] conducted by the "Art Loan Fund Exhibition in Aid of the Bartholdi Pedestal Fund for the Statue of Liberty" to raise money for the pedestal's construction.[4] Lazarus's contribution was solicited by fundraiser William Maxwell Evarts. Initially she refused but writer Constance Cary Harrison convinced her that the statue would be of great significance to immigrants sailing into the harbor.[5]

Where do you think "immigrants sailing into the harbor", in New York City, where the statue resides, would be coming from?

The poem's significance within this context, of immigration, is the specific context invoked by the interviewers questioning him. He was questioned about the nature of those words' relationship to the American ethos. I transcribed the full question and answer in my earlier post. He then referenced this law's relationship to that historical context in his answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882

And Russia is also in Asia and was there at the time of the poem.

Russia is technically not Asia despite its geography. I have argued against the notion it is a European country furiously on this board in the past, but that isn't how it is defined.

Turn your brain back on, Pan. The libtards are diminishing you.

 

[TheGreatA]

Sorry, but your history is just off.

Communist China wasn't even a thing in the immediate post war period, and America was direct allies with the existing Kuomintang government, and remain allied to this day to the Taiwanese government which is the direct successor of the Kuomintang.. We provided Asia with billions in aid and materials during the post war period. The reality is people just weren't moving around during that period. They were reclaiming, rebuilding, and consolidating power all over the world and this was all fueled with US foreign aid. There was just less incentive to immigrate and less capacity to allow it. Countries were devastated everywhere, there was plenty of opportunity to go around.


In regards to Mexico, workers are not immigrants, they were never allowed to stay and were never allowed to be citizens. This program was also followed by the explicitly racist Operation Wetback too, you know, right?

My history isn't "off", you're just nit-picking.


What I said was that, regardless of what laws America had crafted against Chinese immigration, they weren't going to matter because China most likely had laws against immigration into the United States, due to Mao's staunch anti-Americanism.

The KMT were engaged in a bloody civil conflict with the Communists, and were never able to assume true control of the country before being ousted, and whatever chance of an alliance there could have been between the U.S. and China, which may have eventually led to trade and free movement, ended right there.

"Changes in U.S. immigration policy during and after World War II led to the end of Chinese exclusion and opened the door to new and diverse waves of Chinese immigration in the second half of the 20th century. In 1943, Chinese exclusion laws were repealed and small quotas established for Chinese immigration, allowing many families to reunite and for the first time admitting significant numbers of Chinese women to the United States. The establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 caused a large influx of Chinese immigrants in the 1950s, primarily Mandarin-speaking professionals who were displaced by the revolution and entered the United States under more lenient refugee policies.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._immigration_policy_toward_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Background

This seems to directly rail against the idea that America had a racist policy against Chinese, at the time.


Workers aren't immigrants, but it was in its time a rather similar arrangement as Obama's proposal of more easily handed-out guest-worker rights to Mexicans. Which is, after all, what a lot of Mexicans are after anyway, a chance to work in America, if not necessarily immigrate there.

At the end of the day, it set the precedent for America to rely on Mexican labour, and they have been an integral part of the American work-force, ever since.

 

[Rational Poster]

My history isn't "off", you're just nit-picking.


What I said was that, regardless of what laws America had crafted against Chinese immigration, they weren't going to matter because China most likely had laws against immigration into the United States, due to Mao's staunch anti-Americanism.

The KMT were engaged in a bloody civil conflict with the Communists, and were never able to assume true control of the country before being ousted, and whatever chance of an alliance there could have been between the U.S. and China, which may have eventually led to trade and free movement, ended right there.

"Changes in U.S. immigration policy during and after World War II led to the end of Chinese exclusion and opened the door to new and diverse waves of Chinese immigration in the second half of the 20th century. In 1943, Chinese exclusion laws were repealed and small quotas established for Chinese immigration, allowing many families to reunite and for the first time admitting significant numbers of Chinese women to the United States. The establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 caused a large influx of Chinese immigrants in the 1950s, primarily Mandarin-speaking professionals who were displaced by the revolution and entered the United States under more lenient refugee policies.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._immigration_policy_toward_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Background


Workers aren't immigrants, but it was in its time a rather similar arrangement as Obama's proposal of more easily handed-out guest-worker rights to Mexicans. Which is, after all, what a lot of Mexicans are after anyway, a chance to work in America, if not necessarily immigrate there.

At the end of the day, it set the precedent for America to rely on Mexican labour, and they have been an integral part of the American work-force, ever since.

You're missing the part where, prior to the fall of the KMTand the relaxation of policy you've outlined, that there was a racist exclusionary policy against Chinese and Mexicans for nearly our entire history which is what I was referring to.

 

[TheGreatA]

You're missing the part where, prior to the fall of the KMTand the relaxation of policy you've outlined, that there was a racist exclusionary policy against Chinese and Mexicans for nearly our entire history which is what I was referring to.

Yes, but I was mainly speaking of the era of low immigration, which accounts for the WW2-era times and subsequent times up to about the 1960's.

I wouldn't say that the immigration policies, generally-speaking, were outright racist at the time, even though the rate of immigration was low. There were certainly some controversial policies adopted, such as the "Operation Wetback" that you referred to, but even in that case, criticism directed against it, led to its end.

If we look at the era as a whole, and compare it to the modern era, I'm pretty sure we could find similarly fucked up shit, here and there. Post-9/11 hysteria and so forth. Knee-jerk reactions, "Red Scares", reactionary hysteria to individual events, followed up by bad policy. Commies were the calling card at that time.

The original immigration laws of the United States, were mostly definitely racist, and there's not even a question about it.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yes, but I was mainly speaking of the era of low immigration, which accounts for the WW2-era times and subsequent times up to about the 1960's.

I wouldn't say that the immigration policies, generally-speaking, were outright racist at the time, even though the rate of immigration was low. There were certainly some controversial policies adopted, such as the "Operation Wetback" that you referred to, but even in that case, criticism directed against it, led to its end.

If we look at the era as a whole, and compare it to the modern era, I'm pretty sure we could find similarly fucked up shit, here and there. Post-9/11 hysteria and so forth. Knee-jerk reactions, "Red Scares", reactionary hysteria to individual events, followed up by bad policy.

The original immigration laws of the United States, were mostly definitely racist, and there's not even a question about it.

Then all you're really demonstrating is that there was a gradual increase in immigration as the laws liberalized and the economy expanded in the post war period.

 

[avenue94]

Well, Britain didn't actually take much of a beating in that war (demographic-wise or infrastructure-wise), compared to the rest of Europe that is, but they were on the decline at the time, anyway.

Soviets lost a lot but gained a lot, also, they conquered half of Europe, and made much of the rest of it, their bitches. So despite their demographic losses, they gained millions and millions of new citizens for the Soviet Unions, from states which they conquered, as well as puppet states which they controlled. And as usual, the resources were directed into Moscow. It also helps that they involved pretty much everybody into the work-force, including women.

By 1950's, the USSR had a 200+ million population, which exceeded that of America's.

As I said, America benefited from post-WW2 era world order, but it wasn't a free lunch because the USSR also positioned itself well after the war, despite the losses they took.

Britain was crippled financially by the war, plus the impending loss of their empire. They were bound to slip always, but WW2 was the coffin nail in thrm as a great power. And what resources did the Soviets pick up aside from unskilled labor? And labor from countries like Poland, which were also brutalized in the war. Not to mention how much money European countries had to put toward physically rebuilding which you didn't account for. Picking up 10 million laborers that have to go toward building roads is different than picking up 10 million laborers who can build cars and other products that cam be actually sold or traded.

 

[TheGreatA]

Then all you're really demonstrating is that there was a gradual increase in immigration as the laws liberalized and the economy expanded in the post war period.

Well, the interesting thing is that this wasn't necessarily the case. It's only really the 80's and the 90's when the number of foreign labourers in America boomed. Which was long after America had already seen an economic growth.

It has been said that the 1965 reform, actually inadvertently helped create the phenomenon of illegal immigration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...migration-reform-created-illegal-immigration/

 

[Rational Poster]

Well, the interesting thing is that this wasn't necessarily the case. It's only really the 80's and the 90's when the number of foreign labourers in America boomed. Which was long after America had already seen an economic growth.

It has been said that the 1965 reform, actually inadvertently helped create the phenomenon of illegal immigration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...migration-reform-created-illegal-immigration/

Weird, that seems to correlate with the most recent liberalization of immigration laws in 1992 by Bush Sr.