Saturday, July 12, 2014

This is a repost, but its relevant.

Amnesty and the Immigration Act of 1965


 
As we face the somber facts that our president, (and our Republican Speaker of the House for that matter) will likely grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal immigrants, we have to come to accept that the precedent for this was already set as far back as 1965. What many people don’t realize is that immigration laws were dramatically changed in this period by Democrat President, Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, it might be safe to say that this little understood piece of legislation was responsible for the Immigration reform and Control Act of 1986, which was signed into law by conservative icon, Ronald Reagan. This law gave legal status to nearly four million illegal immigrants and it was signed by one of the most conservative presidents we have ever had. Ronald Reagan, according to Charlotte Iserbyt, is also responsible for signing agreements with the Soviet Union concerning education and the merging of the two nations. This is discussed in further detail in my article entitled “The Truth about Education… A Truth We Have to Accept” found here at The Radical Conservative.
All we hear today is the need for diversity and multiculturalism. We are constantly being bombarded with accusations of racism and intolerance for cultures that are different than ours. As the struggle for human rights and equality raged in the 1960’s, it seems that the same ideas of non-discrimination were being applied universally, especially when it came to immigration. Lyndon B. Johnson reformed the nation’s immigration laws to make it a universal “human right” to immigrate to the United States. www.jtl.org/auster/PNS.pdf President Johnson claimed that by keeping immigrants from certain countries out of the U.S. we were not living up to our ideals of liberty and equality.
You see, up until this point our immigration laws were based on a quota system. What this means is that immigration from certain parts of the world was limited to a number that was equal to the proportion of that population already living in the U.S. This was done for obvious reasons, to protect the cultural integrity of our nation. In fact, sociologists Stephen Klineberg of Rice University went as far to say that our immigration policies were based purely on racism because our attempts to maintain cultural identity meant most immigrants allowed into the country were from northern Europe.  This is where the argument comes in that the U.S. is a racist nation, because we are selfishly looking out for our cultural identity only.  I guess it doesn't matter that we were taking refugees from communist nations around the world that far exceeded any quota. The Asians are a prime example, only 100 per year were allowed from Asian countries however; we took hundreds of thousands of refugees seeking freedom from oppressive communist regimes. This is one of those facts that today’s commie loving dingalings (as I like to call them) would never tell you, it doesn't fit their narrative. It was also argued at the time that the law would not have a dramatic effect on millions of people in the U.S. and it would not change the demographic outlook of the nation. It was argued that only immigrants with families already residing in the U.S. would be the beneficiaries of this law.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5391395 The reality of this law however, has had dire consequences. Since its passage there has been three times the number of immigrants admitted into the nation as the previous thirty years. This does not include the millions of undocumented, illegal immigrants.  http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration  As the quota system was eliminated and immigration was opened up to all corners of the world, many people with little education, employable skill, or desire to assimilate to U.S. laws and culture came into the country. I am not saying that all people who have immigrated here have not contributed to society. I happen to believe anyone of any race or ethnicity can succeed in this nation; however, that doesn’t change the fact that we are being overrun by people with no respect for our laws while demanding we bend over backwards in acceptance of their culture.
The point of this article was not to suggest “ who or who not” should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S., rather, the point is to demonstrate that the issue of amnesty and immigration in general entails a great deal more than many people realize.
If you know what Lyndon Johnson had done before this you would have to think that this was part of a longer term strategy to secure the votes of minorities for the democrat party. Let me explain. Many people understand that President Johnson, a democrat, signed the civil rights act of 1964. What they don’t understand is that he voted against it when introduced in 1957 by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Lyndon Johnson at the time was the senate majority leader and was able to ensure that the senate would vote down Eisenhower’s bill. This is discussed in further detail in my previous articles on racism posted below. Given the fact the blacks and the Mexicans have voted primarily democrat for the past four decades, and the Mexicans are a huge focus for democrat campaigns you have to admit that it does seem possible that the civil rights act of 64 and the Immigration act of 65 actually worked hand in hand in securing a permanent voter base for the Democrat Party. As President Obama pushes towards what we fear is an inevitable granting of amnesty to people who are not interested in sharing our ideals we have to ask ourselves, based on this information, if it wasn't all part of the plan. If not, it sure turned out to be a beneficial coincidence for the Democrat Party.

No comments:

Post a Comment