Donald Trump's Immigration and Refugee Ban

[B. W.]

Not a single comment, but a speech that was reflective of the opinions of most Congressmen. The act passed by a large majority.

The speech was reflective of what would have been considered common knowledge at the time; that is that the Catholic Church had historically been involved in the governments of southern Europe and also had a history of religious persecution, for example the French Huguenots.

The legislation was also supported by labor unions, including Jewish labor unions. Your argument that it was passed based on racism doesn't hold water.

The state of race relations in a given time period is often reflective of contemporary fears and anxieties.

"Colonial Americans" is easier to type than "British subjects in Colonial America, namely the Middle Colonies, the Southern Colonies, and New England."

O.K. But if you're going to break it down into time periods you should, for full disclosure and honesty, explain that the Colonials had a very fresh history with the French and the French were still there on the borders and were a very real threat.

Continentals, on the other hand, embraced the French as allies because their assistance was desperately needed. The French were willing to help because of their animosity towards the British.

Some Americans, as we became to be known, tried to return the favor by assisting in the French revolution and almost ended up on the guillotine. The bloody revolution and the subsequent rise of Napoleon, as well as the meddling of the Catholic Church left a wary sentiment among most Americans towards those peoples.

Not sure why it's interesting. I can't say for certain if the Gentlemen's Agreement was an executive order, but it was due to Teddy Roosevelt's actions as president.

All countries know that an agreement between leaders is strictly that and also know that when an opposing party takes over the "agreement" goes out the door with the preceding leader.

Most Americans were not consumed with those fears, true. It's not like they checked under the bed for Papist agents. But it was an undercurrent that affected much of American society and contributed to their dim views of Italian, Polish, and Russian immigrants. Remember that the '20s was also an age where the KKK was resurgent. Like the National Origins Act, it was a sign of the unease that native-born Americans felt when confronted by the new wave of mass immigration.

Oh yeah, and its worth noting that the KKK was particularly active in the North. But of course, you probably didn't know that.

When newer immigrants are restricted or excluded primarily due to their national origin or religion, then it's xenophobia. And our legal institutions are ensuring that xenophobia doesn't ever rule again. That's why the sentient Cheeto's proposed ban was held back.

The reason why the ban was held back was because a judge ignored the Constitution and instead decided to enter into politics by throwing a wrench into the workings of a sitting President. The ruling will be overturned, but it will take time. That was the judges objective; not upholding the law.

And there's the conspiracy theory. Curses! And I was just about to trigger a UN invasion too.

Ah, there it is. When a liberal is faced with the contradictions of their arguments they instinctively fall back into their holy trinity of racism, or conspiracy theory, or right wing nut job.

How about just admitting that claiming the laws will keep the country from falling and at the same time not obeying the laws is a contradiction.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Oh yeah, and its worth noting that the KKK was particularly active in the North. But of course, you probably didn't know that.

I don't think IronBrig4's statement that there was "an undercurrent that affected much of American society" is particularly damaged by the well-known fact that the second wave of the Ku Klux Klan made huge progress outside the South: quite the opposite in fact. Interestingly it made a lot of progress even in states with small to negligible minority populations, and its emphasis on white Protestant Americanism endeared it to Republicans as well as Democrats (despite the Klan previously being little more than an arm of the latter) to such an extent that in 1924 it was able to defeat planks at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions condemning it by name. One of the reasons the Klan spread was because the "kleagles" were instructed to pander to whatever prejudices they could find, so the Klan ended up having anti-Asian, anti-Hispanic, anti-Irish or anti-Italian slants depending on where it was - likely all, but with differing stresses.

[B. W.]

I don't think IronBrig4's statement that there was "an undercurrent that affected much of American society" is particularly damaged by the well-known fact that the second wave of the Ku Klux Klan made huge progress outside the South: quite the opposite in fact. Interestingly it made a lot of progress even in states with small to negligible minority populations, and its emphasis on white Protestant Americanism endeared it to Republicans as well as Democrats (despite the Klan previously being little more than an arm of the latter) to such an extent that in 1924 it was able to defeat planks at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions condemning it by name. One of the reasons the Klan spread was because the "kleagles" were instructed to pander to whatever prejudices they could find, so the Klan ended up having anti-Asian, anti-Hispanic, anti-Irish or anti-Italian slants depending on where it was - likely all, but with differing stresses.

You must not have noticed IB4's many posts on white southern racism.

[IronBrig4]

The speech was reflective of what would have been considered common knowledge at the time; that is that the Catholic Church had historically been involved in the governments of southern Europe and also had a history of religious persecution, for example the French Huguenots.

The legislation was also supported by labor unions, including Jewish labor unions. Your argument that it was passed based on racism doesn't hold water.

Labor unions wouldn't have wanted cheap immigrant competition regardless of religion. It doesn't change the fact that the act was based on xenophobia.

O.K. But if you're going to break it down into time periods you should, for full disclosure and honesty, explain that the Colonials had a very fresh history with the French and the French were still there on the borders and were a very real threat.

At the time, colonials had a reason to be wary about the French. And anti-French sentiment became synonymous with anti-Catholic sentiment.

Some Americans, as we became to be known, tried to return the favor by assisting in the French revolution and almost ended up on the guillotine. The bloody revolution and the subsequent rise of Napoleon, as well as the meddling of the Catholic Church left a wary sentiment among most Americans towards those peoples.

When did the Catholic Church meddle in Napoleon's Europe? Napoleon seemed to have gone out of his way to annoy the Church and make war on Catholic countries.

All countries know that an agreement between leaders is strictly that and also know that when an opposing party takes over the "agreement" goes out the door with the preceding leader.

True, but the agreement was more or less followed throughout Wilson and then Harding's administrations. It had gone beyond an agreement between leaders to an agreement between nations.

Oh yeah, and its worth noting that the KKK was particularly active in the North. But of course, you probably didn't know that.

The KKK expanded past the Mason-Dixon Line and had nationwide membership during this time. The anxieties it exploited were often economic as well. Craftsmen thought cheap immigrant factory workers were taking their livelihoods. And there was also the belief that Jewish factory owners were deliberately causing it.

The reason why the ban was held back was because a judge ignored the Constitution and instead decided to enter into politics by throwing a wrench into the workings of a sitting President. The ruling will be overturned, but it will take time. That was the judges objective; not upholding the law.

And the ruling is supported by the law. We'll see what happens. Either way, it'll be interesting.

Ah, there it is. When a liberal is faced with the contradictions of their arguments they instinctively fall back into their holy trinity of racism, or conspiracy theory, or right wing nut job.

How about just admitting that claiming the laws will keep the country from falling and at the same time not obeying the laws is a contradiction.

When you suggest that people who are against the Muslim ban are doing it because immigrants will vote Democratic, that's when it crosses the line into conspiracy theory territory.

And the judges who oppose the ban ARE obeying the laws.

[alhoon]

Yeah because France and the UK have absolutely never meddled in the Middle East. But let's not beat around the bush. America and the EU are blameless. The reason there is war there is because that's what the locals want. If you mention pluralism and liberal democracy they will laugh at you. There is no moral justification for importing that culture into the West.

I didn't say the Europeans are blameless. And while I agree that if the locals didn't want a war there wouldn't be a war, the fact is that the vast majority of the locals don't want a war, a well armed minority does. And USA and European countries were arming violent thugs as long as they weren't communists and later they were arming violent thugs as long as they were promoting their interests.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

You must not have noticed IB4's many posts on white southern racism.

Right, but IronBrig4 was talking about a general background racism in 20s society. Pointing to the South isn't exactly unfair, it's where the situation was worst and it's where all the three waves of the Klan sprung up and had their base.

[Prodromos]

I didn't say the Europeans are blameless. And while I agree that if the locals didn't want a war there wouldn't be a war, the fact is that the vast majority of the locals don't want a war, a well armed minority does. And USA and European countries were arming violent thugs as long as they weren't communists and later they were arming violent thugs as long as they were promoting their interests.

I'm just saying that if you go back far enough, you could probably blame the war on the Roman empire or whatever. I'd just rather blame the starters of the war. I am not aware of surveys about this, but I wouldn't assume the locals don't want war. I think they simply don't want a war they are losing. I highly doubt they disagree with the concept of one tribal group repressing all others.

[B. W.]

Labor unions wouldn't have wanted cheap immigrant competition regardless of religion. It doesn't change the fact that the act was based on xenophobia.

Your original argument was that the act was passed based on Anglo-racism. Now your saying that it was based on Anglo-racism.

The fact remains that many, like Samuel Gompers, the Jewish head of the cigar rollers union supported it because immigrants were driving down wages and taking jobs.

You continually try to boil everything down to Anglo-racism which is in itself xenophobic.

At the time, colonials had a reason to be wary about the French. And anti-French sentiment became synonymous with anti-Catholic sentiment..

Of course they did.

When did the Catholic Church meddle in Napoleon's Europe? Napoleon seemed to have gone out of his way to annoy the Church and make war on Catholic countries..

This issue is far too complicated historically to clarify in a few sentences. Napoleon himself was raised a Catholic, but made war on Catholic countries. His policies, such as education reform weakened the Catholic Church's influence on the governments of southern Europe. Americans saw the rise of Napoleon as evidence that the French could not be trusted to maintain a democracy.

That is a radically simplistic overview of those times, but it is mostly accurate.

True, but the agreement was more or less followed throughout Wilson and then Harding's administrations. It had gone beyond an agreement between leaders to an agreement between nations..

The fact that it was not touched on does not make it legally binding. It only illustrates the fact that politicians will not dive into politically sensitive subjects unless they are popular and have broad popular appeal.

The KKK expanded past the Mason-Dixon Line and had nationwide membership during this time. The anxieties it exploited were often economic as well. Craftsmen thought cheap immigrant factory workers were taking their livelihoods. And there was also the belief that Jewish factory owners were deliberately causing it..

Cheap immigrant labor was taking craftsmen's jobs and the belief that Wall Street puts profit above the welfare of this country's citizens is something that is not unique to that time period. Those were turbulent times. The nation had just seen an influx of millions of cheap labor and Corporate profits were breaking records while the income and good job opportunities of working Americans was dwindling. Sound familiar?

Oddly enough, I remember seeing a Laurel and Hardy movie that touched on this very fact, which was made in the time period relative to the issue.

And the ruling is supported by the law. We'll see what happens. Either way, it'll be interesting..

The ruling was based on the judge's opinion of what he thought the ban was about. Not the wording or the legality of the wording of the ban.

When you suggest that people who are against the Muslim ban are doing it because immigrants will vote Democratic, that's when it crosses the line into conspiracy theory territory.

And the judges who oppose the ban ARE obeying the laws.

I am suggesting that the DNC and its supporters are against the ban because they know that more people coming in who depend on government assistance means more votes for them. Noting the truth is not xenophobic.

Judges creating legal injunctions based on nothing more than their political beliefs is not obeying the law.

[The spartan]

I am suggesting that the DNC and its supporters are against the ban because they know that more people coming in who depend on government assistance means more votes for them. Noting the truth is not xenophobic.

Judges creating legal injunctions based on nothing more than their political beliefs is not obeying the law.

You know incoming refugees don't vote in our elections, right?

[Sebidee]

I think it's fair enough that a country should have control over immigration. You can argue over whether it is effective way to stop terrorism or whether it would just disproportionately affect honest people but still, if a country decides that's what it wants to do then fine.

I wouldn't support a ban on accepting refugees though. Most countries in the Middle East are bursting with refugees at the moment, countries across the world should share the burden on refugees so that they are spread out and not so much of a problem. The USA should take its fair share.

[B. W.]

You know incoming refugees don't vote in our elections, right?

I'm wondering what fantasy country you're living in?

Why do you suppose the Democrats called a halt to the vote recounts in the states they were instituted in? Answer: the scrutiny of those votes was not helpful to the mantra that you are espousing. Obama, Pelosi, as well as other leading democrats were urging those people to go and vote.

I personally stood in line right next to an illegal voter who had no idea of the process, could not speak a word of English, and who was being escorted by a Democratic Party activist.

Additionally, those people do put an added strain on the social welfare system because they do receive benefits from the Social Security system. Anyone who has taken the time to go down to the Soc. Sec. offices will see this is readily apparent. When I signed up for my benefits there were groups of people who could not speak English and were clearly, as their dress would indicate, new arrivals. These people were being escorted through the process by government interpreters and handlers. The next time you look at your paycheck and the SS withholding you should think about that.

You're paying in to a system that was designed for American workers to have an income when they are too old to work, but you'll never see a penny of it because the system is being overdrawn by foreigners who never paid a dime into it, as well other reasons.

And, it is well known that Democratic politicians have been pushing for amnesty for the simple reason those people will vote Democrat to insure the continuity of those benefits.

[the_mango55]

I'm wondering what fantasy country you're living in?

Why do you suppose the Democrats called a halt to the vote recounts in the states they were instituted in? Answer: the scrutiny of those votes was not helpful to the mantra that you are espousing. Obama, Pelosi, as well as other leading democrats were urging those people to go and vote.

I personally stood in line right next to an illegal voter who had no idea of the process, could not speak a word of English, and who was being escorted by a Democratic Party activist.

Additionally, those people do put an added strain on the social welfare system because they do receive benefits from the Social Security system. Anyone who has taken the time to go down to the Soc. Sec. offices will see this is readily apparent. When I signed up for my benefits there were groups of people who could not speak English and were clearly, as their dress would indicate, new arrivals. These people were being escorted through the process by government interpreters and handlers. The next time you look at your paycheck and the SS withholding you should think about that.

You're paying in to a system that was designed for American workers to have an income when they are too old to work, but you'll never see a penny of it because the system is being overdrawn by foreigners who never paid a dime into it, as well other reasons.

And, it is well known that Democratic politicians have been pushing for amnesty for the simple reason those people will vote Democrat to insure the continuity of those benefits.

Non-citizens can't vote

They don't receive social security benefits unless they are legal residents with enough qualifying quarters (in other words the same way everyone else gets benefits)

And they will probably pay in more in (sales) taxes than they will ever get out of the government

The fact that your evidence is entirely based on what you think you've seen is all I need to hear.

Also it's well known that Republicans push the war on (black) drugs to ensure as many people as possible who might vote Democrat are not able to, because they are in prison. Why else do you think the rural drug epidemic is considered a health crisis while urban drug use is considered a criminal problem. People trip all over themselves coming up with excuses for why lower class white people in rural America are ODing on opioids in record numbers these days.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm wondering what fantasy country you're living in?

Why do you suppose the Democrats called a halt to the vote recounts in the states they were instituted in? Answer: the scrutiny of those votes was not helpful to the mantra that you are espousing. Obama, Pelosi, as well as other leading democrats were urging those people to go and vote.

I personally stood in line right next to an illegal voter who had no idea of the process, could not speak a word of English, and who was being escorted by a Democratic Party activist.

Additionally, those people do put an added strain on the social welfare system because they do receive benefits from the Social Security system. Anyone who has taken the time to go down to the Soc. Sec. offices will see this is readily apparent. When I signed up for my benefits there were groups of people who could not speak English and were clearly, as their dress would indicate, new arrivals. These people were being escorted through the process by government interpreters and handlers. The next time you look at your paycheck and the SS withholding you should think about that.

You're paying in to a system that was designed for American workers to have an income when they are too old to work, but you'll never see a penny of it because the system is being overdrawn by foreigners who never paid a dime into it, as well other reasons.

And, it is well known that Democratic politicians have been pushing for amnesty for the simple reason those people will vote Democrat to insure the continuity of those benefits.

Why did the Republicans sued for recount of votes in similar fashion? Where is the link for Obama or any other Democrat calling out for refugees with no voting rights to come forth and vote in the USA elections?

Your personal account is nice and dandy but in such an obvious case it would be reported to the authorities and we'd hear all about it on the countless Republican blogs. None can be found.

[Sebidee]

Lol, these political threads arw so funny. When I see one I find interesting I ignore all of the fighting replies and just leave an honest and moderate reply to the OP.

And then it gets ignored and buried under a bunch of guys at each other lol

What you guys are talking about is vote manipulation. Everyone does it to try and get an edge. In America the Republicans do it by putting restrictions on ID, like how in some states you can vote with a gun permit but not with a university ID card (because gun owners are more likely to vote Republican and college students are more likely to vote Democrat). Democrats do it by granting votes to recent immigrants. Every one does it and they have done it in every democratic country for as long as people have been able to vote.

Edit: haha it happened again

[B. W.]

Non-citizens can't vote

They don't receive social security benefits unless they are legal residents with enough qualifying quarters (in other words the same way everyone else gets benefits)

And they will probably pay in more in (sales) taxes than they will ever get out of the government

The fact that your evidence is entirely based on what you think you've seen is all I need to hear.

Also it's well known that Republicans push the war on (black) drugs to ensure as many people as possible who might vote Democrat are not able to, because they are in prison. Why else do you think the rural drug epidemic is considered a health crisis while urban drug use is considered a criminal problem. People trip all over themselves coming up with excuses for why lower class white people in rural America are ODing on opioids in record numbers these days.

Total BS.

And then there is this little gem where Obama is telling illegals it is O.K. to vote:

http://yournewswire.com/obama-undocu...llegally-vote/

[RedGuard]

Total BS.

And then there is this little gem where Obama is telling illegals it is O.K. to vote:

http://yournewswire.com/obama-undocu...llegally-vote/

im interested in what Obama said after that 34 second video that is your proof. Sigh....

[The spartan]

Total BS.

And then there is this little gem where Obama is telling illegals it is O.K. to vote:

http://yournewswire.com/obama-undocu...llegally-vote/

You know that refugees are different than illegal immigrants, right? I know you may have them simply in the same category as "the 'others'" in your mind but they are very different categories of people. Even if thinking illegal immigrants are voting en mass during US elections were reasonable (it's not), that has nothing really to do with refugees voting. Refugees enter the country legally, and have no right to vote until they have been living in the country for many years, far too long to have an immediate political effect.

[PointOfViewGun]

Total BS.

And then there is this little gem where Obama is telling illegals it is O.K. to vote:

http://yournewswire.com/obama-undocu...llegally-vote/

Sigh... He's talking about her first of all, and in general Latino citizens, actual citizens. He continues to talk about that you should even vote for sure if you have an undocumented family member. Is this the best that you can do? At no point in that interview does he say that its OK for illegals to vote. You're simply lying.

[B. W.]

im interested in what Obama said after that 34 second video that is your proof. Sigh....

I was only interested in the question concerning non-citizens voting. If you're interested in the rest of it you should look it up. Sigh...

You know that refugees are different than illegal immigrants, right? I know you may have them simply in the same category as "the 'others'" in your mind but they are very different categories of people. Even if thinking illegal immigrants are voting en mass during US elections were reasonable (it's not), that has nothing really to do with refugees voting. Refugees enter the country legally, and have no right to vote until they have been living in the country for many years, far too long to have an immediate political effect.

I clearly know the difference. It's Democratic politicians that apparently don't. When was the last time you heard a Democratic politician utter the words "illegal alien"?

Democrats won't even use the two words "illegal" and "immigrant" in the same sentence. And it is amazing how fast that "refugees" suddenly become "immigrants" in the DNC jargon.

You keep referring to laws that Democrats routinely ignore.

Sigh... He's talking about her first of all, and in general Latino citizens, actual citizens. He continues to talk about that you should even vote for sure if you have an undocumented family member. Is this the best that you can do? At no point in that interview does he say that its OK for illegals to vote. You're simply lying.

You wanted a link showing that Obama was encouraging non-citizens to vote and I gave you one. The woman was asking Obama if she, as a non-citizen, would get in trouble if she voted and he told her, and by extension her audience, that she wouldn't have any problems.

[PointOfViewGun]

You wanted a link showing that Obama was encouraging non-citizens to vote and I gave you one. The woman was asking Obama if she, as a non-citizen, would get in trouble if she voted and he told her, and by extension her audience, that she wouldn't have any problems.

This is typical. One makes a claim. The claim gets refuted with substance. The one who made the initial claim merely repeats the claim in response without the slightest attempt at addressing the refutation. It shows clearly that the initial claim was a lie. It's quite explicit from the interview that Obama is talking about legal Latino citizens, and not illegal Latino citizens. This is a despicable lie that you used. Really pathetic.

All your ignoring will do is to stop giving yourself the chance to fix a lie as such as the one you're using right now about Obama.

By the way, Gina Rodriguez was born in Chicago in 1984. She is not a non-citizen. She can't get into trouble for voting.