Talk:Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The original Act was a quota system for European nationalities. By 1965, borders had changed and many of these countries were behind the Iron Curtain. Since 1965, borders have again changed globally. Whether that results in ethnic discrimination is debatable. RobSGive Peace a chance 12:57, April 27, 2023 (EDT)

The 1924 Act was racist against both Eastern Europeans and Asians; it was motivated by the eugenics of the Progressive Movement, and its House sponsor, Albert Johnson, so enthused the Ku Klux Klan in his anti-immigration activism that its priority was the "renomination and re-election of Representative Albert Johnson of Washington, so he can continue to be Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and fight for restricted immigration laws." —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 13:07, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
That's Howard Zinn's narrative, but it isn't the only one. RobSGive Peace a chance 15:25, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
Incidentally, you just proved you don't know what a commiesymp is, revealing the level of your own communist brainwashing. RobSGive Peace a chance 15:28, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
[EC] Oh, the irony; you've just demonstrated what we call, "pot calling the kettle black." The historical reality is clear: immigration restriction historically was a tool of the political left, favored by working-class populists and opposed by business-oriented conservatives. Which region from the late 1800s to the 1920s opposed immigration? The West, comprised of rural progressives and socialists who advocated free silver, inflationary greenbacks, and labor unions. The Northeast, then a bastion of classical liberalism, favored immigrants (and as a result, racial tolerance) for cheaper labor in concordance with free-market capitalism, and supported the gold standard.
According to the Mises Institute:
“ Nativism is usually associated with the right, but that shouldn’t be the case for these progressives. The AFL supported the 1882 and 1924 immigration restriction acts against the Chinese. In fact, many “progressive” labor unions were very racist, nativist, and nationalist. Even the second incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan in the early twentieth century, aside from being quite racist, was also in favor of many progressive reforms. ”

—Andrew Syrios, July 22, 2014

So if you're actually defending the 1924 Johnson–Reed Act, you're defending a legacy of racist xenophobia installed by the Progressive Movement. I'd ask that you quit being deceptive, but that's too much to expect out of you. You'd rather use a guilt-by-association fallacy, saying, "oh look, commies claim to oppose racism, so you dare expose the racist history of xenophobic legislation, yoUr tHe rEaL cOmmIesYmP!1!!" —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 15:36, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
duh, who controlled Congress and what president signed the Act? Now you're really pushing commie talking points. Like the Patriot Act as a response to 9/11, the Immigration Act was a result of the Sacco-Venzetti case (interesting, there's a town in Ukraine named by the Bolsheviks after Sacco and Venzetti. Neither were Ukrainian or even Slavic). 15:43, April 27, 2023 (EDT)RobSGive Peace a chance
Both the 1924 Immigration Act, and the Patriot Act, are examples of how (as Democrats say) "our democracy" works as a response to terrorism. Your argument is that basically, the American people (as opposed to its government) are racist spanning nearly 80 years. Cause in both instances, the Congress was responding to public demand and outrage after terrorist incidents. RobSGive Peace a chance 15:48, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
[EC] Oh please, opposing racism constitutes "commie talking points"? Now that's what a Communist would say. Also, "national security" was the propaganda scare used by progressives in the 1910s–20s to create a police state at the expense of civil liberties, just as it was in the 2000s by neocons when they enacted the Patriot Act. The Wilson Administration's repression against so-called socialists, anarchists, and Communists, were conducted by someone deemed young, militant, progressive, and fearless; the Sedition Act was opposed mostly by conservative Republicans. I recommend understanding some basic history.
"but the public demanded" Well, guess what, the U.S. was founded as a republic, not a democracy. The country was better back in the days of the Gilded Age when right-wing machines were in power before a mob of populist progressives took over demanding direct democracy and immigration restriction, turning the country into hellhole infested with race riots that the country saw in the late 1910s and early 20s. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 15:50, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
As I've tried to tell you before, not all issues, whether current or historical, fit neatly into your little boxes of "left" and "right", "conservative" and "liberal" or even "progressive". In fact, failing to understand this simple fact is a leading cause of misinformation. RobSGive Peace a chance 15:56, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
Understand basic history? ahh, duh, the Sedition Act was passed long before there was a Republican or even Democrat party. RobSGive Peace a chance 15:58, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
If you think "left" and "right" don't matter, take a look at Ecc. 10:2 and Matt. 25:31–46. Also, I'm referring to the Sedition Act of 1918, not the Alien and Sedition Acts. Are you even paying attention?
[EC] Oh and evidently, what you fail to understand is that the political movements which facilitated the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924 were left-wing to their core—they were reformists who demanded public education, an end to child labor (imagine the horror of getting a job experience, just as leftists today can't stand the thought of young teenagers appreciating a work ethic), and "public health regulations" (aka eugenics), or what we today consider Faucism. But of course, because the modern day populists of the "right," just like the old-school progressives, demand immigration restriction, you, a fellow stooge, will bow along like a hack and blather along in apologetics of racism. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 16:02, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
Lenin declared worldwide revolution when the Bolsheviks took power Workers of the World Unite! Communists came to the US from Eastern Europe weith the intent to overthrow the government. The immigration law was Congress's response to the popular demand to do something about it.
Now, we can get into a discussion of the supposed "Jewish controlled" media that stirred up the American people with all these racist horror stories about Slavs, Jews, Polish Catholic and Eastern European immigration to pressure the Republican Congress to pass that racist piece of immigration if you like, but it might not fit with some of your preconceived notions. RobSGive Peace a chance 16:34, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
You're still missing the point; the 1924 Act was racially motivated, and I pointed out the evidence to you above. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 17:46, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
(ec) Here's another basic principle you do not understand: you seem to think what a politician says is his position or what he actually believes (ignoring political realities). This is how get charges that Matt Gaetz voted for some abortion bill when an amendment was actually attached to some bill on another subject. RobSGive Peace a chance 16:03, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
Then what am I miscomprehending specifically? —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 16:04, April 27, 2023 (EDT)
Not everything fits into your neat little boxes and "isms". I'll go so far as saying people who insist every idea, concept, and political figure who doesn't fit into one of your boxes or wear a label - those people are basically too lazy to actually study an issue - and that's where the suffix 'ism" comes from. it's for lazy people who thinking and analyzing is too much work. RobSGive Peace a chance
Again, perhaps you can clarify and be more specific? —LT (Matthew 26:52) Thursday, 17:46, April 27, 2023 (EDT)

Objection to LT's edits

Saying that criticism of the Hart-Celler Act is "racist", "white nationalist", and "anti-Semitic dog whistling" is one of the most liberal things I have heard in a while. Not everyone who wishes to cut immigration to a very low level like those pre-1965 necessarily has a prejudiced view of immigrants. Also, restriction of immigration is not "progressive", no matter how bad neoconservatives want it to be. To prove this, I shall attach multiple counterexamples below:

  • Calvin Coolidge, a devout civil rights advocate and opponent of the Ku Klux Klan and lynching, strongly supported the Johnson-Reed Act and signed it into law. He went as far as to say, "Restricted immigration is not an offensive but purely a defensive action. It is not adopted in criticism of others in the slightest degree, but solely for the purpose of protecting ourselves. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American."[1] Coolidge was by no means a nativist, for in the same year he signed the Johnson-Reed Act he thanked immigrants for their contributions to America, praised ethnic diversity, and called on Americans to assist immigrants. He happily rejected prejudice towards immigrants. [2] Warren G. Harding, his predecessor, also was an opponent of the Klan and conservative who opposed unrestricted immigration as well, as he signed the Emergency Quota Act into law in 1921. Both were part of the Old Right, which LT claims to support. Yet the Huffington Post attacks people like Coolidge as racist. [3] If so-called conservatives of the day opposed such legislation, then why did Coolidge and Harding-who were by no means racist-gladly support it?
  • Woodrow Wilson, a prominent Democrat progressive and racist who can be credited for bringing back the KKK, vetoed the Asiatic Barred Zone Act while as president, which restricted immigration. Nobody contests the fact Wilson was a racist progressive, yet he vetoed this act which was against immigration. If racist progressives were nativist, how come Wilson vetoed this legislation instead of signing it into law?
  • Henry Cabot Lodge, a prominent supporter of civil rights as evidenced by his support for the Lodge Bill, which he was behind, supported the Asiatic Barred Zone Act and the Johnson-Reed Act. Lodge was a conservative too. Again, if such legislation was progressive, why didn't Lodge oppose it?
  • Even some mainstream conservatives attacked by the left like William F. Buckley Jr. opposed the Hart-Celler Act, as stated in the article. Is Buckley a progressive nativist now?
  • Norris Cotton, a conservative GOP pro-civil rights Senator that LT loves, voted against the Hart-Celler Act. A very similar Senator loved by LT who also was conservative and pro-civil rights, Bourke B. Hickenlooper, just barely supported the bill after Everett Dirksen told him too.
  • Henry Winter Davis and Thaddeus Stevens, both Radical Republicans who strongly wished to inflict harsh punishment on the South during Reconstruction for leaving the Union, were both at one point members of the Know Nothing Party during their careers. In fact, the Know Nothing Party was in many ways absorbed by the early Republican Party that opposed slavery and supported civil rights for all, and many other Radical Republicans were former Know Nothingers. While I would not join the Know Nothing Party if I were alive then as it was inflammatory in its rhetoric sometimes, much unlike Coolidge and other conservatives whose positions most immigration restrictionists try to model, this is still some good evidence that civil rights supporting Republicans were against increased immigration going back all the way to the party's roots, especially in the case of Winter Davis.
  • Alexander Hamilton, the leading conservative Founding Father, was a supporter of restricting immigration, unlike his more liberal counterpart Thomas Jefferson, who opposed it.

As you can see, conservatives have long supported restricted immigration, many of whom were pro-civil rights. This completely debunks the narrative that immigration restriction was an example of "progressive nativism". Yes, their have been some racist nativists who have supported immigration restriction unfortunately, but they are a minority and many immigration restrictionists, including myself, gladly condemn them wholeheartedly. Also, it is important to note that the term "progressive" meant something much different back in the day, and really was just a big tent that encompassed just about anybody in the early 1900s who supported social and labor reform. You could make the argument that many progressive back in the day (like Theodore Roosevelt) would be pro-civil rights conservatives today, and TR himself supported restricting immigration. Progressivism as a movement didn't fully become what it is today until Woodrow Wilson got in power, who like I said earlier was a racist and supporter of increased immigration. So really, any attempt to tie anti-immigration efforts today to the progressive movement back then are meaningless, if not impossible. Simply put, you can oppose immigration as a conservative and not be some progressive white nationalist. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 20:40, April 28, 2023 (EDT)

Those "examples" are insufficient counterarguments to the larger picture I've already highlighted above, that racially motivated immigration restrictions, such as the Johnson–Reed Act, spawned from the Progressive Movement. While some like Coolidge favored the 1924 Act for non-racist reasons, it does not deny the reality of the Act's racist roots nor that progressives heavily favored it (see the Mises quote). Also, if you studied your history properly, you'd know that Thaddeus Stevens's association with the Know Nothing Party was highly expedient, as he did not hold anti-immigration prejudices.
Yes, Lodge supported the Immigration Act of 1924—just because a conservative supported an immigration restriction bill does not deny its progressive origins. Per the preface of Rothbard's book about the Progressive Movement:
“ Progressivism brought the triumph of institutionalized racism, the disfranchising of blacks in the South, the cutting off of immigration, the building up of trade unions by the federal government into a tripartite of big government, big business, big union alliance, the glorifying of military virtues and conscription, and a drive for American expansion abroad. ”

—The Progressive Era

Pertaining to the vote on the Hart–Celler Act, Cotton was among the minority of Republicans which opposed it; the large bulk of conservative Republicans joined the majority support, and the primary opposition were segregationist Southerners, which alone ought to be self-explanatory. The lash against the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, both then and now, cannot distance itself from its intrinsic racial motivations. In short, your narrative of history is a pile of second-rate cherry-picked propaganda. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 21:49, April 28, 2023 (EDT)

I am not saying that there were not racist progressives back in the day who supported the act, I do not deny that at all. They supported the act for the wrong reasons and should be condemned. The point I am trying to make is, not everyone who supported it was racist, and if not everyone who supported it was racist, it is unfair to say it has racist roots. Also, one of the Senators who the act was named after, David A. Reed, was a member of the American Liberty League and a part of the Old Right.[4] Our own page on paleoconservatism notes that paleocons trace their heritage back to the Old Right Republicans of the interwar period, who opposed US membership in the League of Nations, passed the Johnson-Reed Act, and were against the New Deal.[5] This shows that the Old Right played a role in the passage of the bill, not just progressives. So you cannot boil it down to just having "racist roots".

As for the Thaddeus Stevens part, yes, I did know Stevens was only a member of the party briefly and he encouraged hospitality towards immigrants, which is something he deserves to be commended for and is something I should have mentioned in retrospect. But that does not change the fact he was still a member, which means he must have not seen anti-immigration sentiment as something that was necessarily bad or nativist, or else he would not have joined. Plus, you still have Henry Winter Davis, who we do know was against immigration.

I think if a conservative like Lodge supported the bill then that should make you re-think whether the bill was a bunch of bad progressive nonsense and accept the fact that you can not just boil it down to being about racist progressivism vs. non-racist conservatism. As for the Cotton part, just because a majority of northeastern Republicans supported it and a majority of Southern Democrats opposed it does not mean that it was good. Keep in mind that that was the exact same case for the Pendleton Act[6][7] and we can both agree that that was pretty bad legislation. Yet a majority of Southern Democrats were against it, and most conservative northeastern Republicans supported it at the time. Only a few were against it, like Robert Smalls and Orlando Hubbs. Are we just going to apply the same logic you did to the Hart-Celler Act to the Pendleton Act and assume the Pendleton Act was good and most opposition to it is racist just because Southern Democrats who were probably racist by today's standards during the time were against it? Also, you can point to the fact that most liberal Democrats at the time also supported the bill, I mean it is literally named after Philip Hart and Emanuel Celler, two very left-wing Democrats at the time. By that logic, which one could argue is self-explanatory as well, the bill was bad.

As RobS said, Howard Zinn is not the authority. I mean, use common sense. Trying to take pages out of playbook to spin it and blame it on the Democrats does not make you look smart. That stuff is the real second-rate cherry picked propaganda. Anytime someome uses buzzwords to call a piece of legislation like that white nationalist, or say it has racist roots, they are not being conservative. If nothing else, that makes them sound like a proponent of Critical Race Theory and like a Marxist. Trying to tie it all back to the Democrats and trying to somehow paint it as progressive doesn't make it conservative. It just makes them look silly. Anyways, we need to stop playing this game of, "Well if someone was racist back in the day that were a progressive Democrat and if not vice-versa." History is more complex than that, and failing to recognize this is a liberal trait. The 1924 act was more than just about progressivism, it had a multitude of causes.

Also yes, the AFL did oppose immigration and they were liberal, that is true. But opposing immigration because it lowers wages and causes us to lose jobs is not necessarily nativists. I'm sure there are third and fourth generation Hispanics living near the border who would agree with me on that, as evidenced by how they are starting to shift to the Republican side and vote Republican. While I am sure there were some nativists in the AFL who supported the bill, it also is important to note that Calvin Coolidge and the GOP did not support the bill for the exact same reasons as the AFL did. There were a number of different reasons people supported the bill back then, so the bill should not be judged by its roots, rather, it should be judged by its effects. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 23:24, April 28, 2023 (EDT)

You are again picking at random details to deflect from the larger picture I've already outlined. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 23:40, April 28, 2023 (EDT)

I don't see how I am, I'm literally just trying to respond to your points. What I am saying is that there is evidence that support for Johnson-Reed/opposition to Hart-Celler is not necessarily racist and progressive, so we should not slander the former as it misses the bigger picture. Remember, as conservatives we are supposed to take the long view of history as compared to the short view, which means we must not try to boil the Johnson-Reed/Hart-Celler Acts down to being a black-and-white issue when looking at racism and progressivism. It is much more complex and nuanced than that.-Mr. Nationalist (talk) 23:54, April 28, 2023 (EDT)

The long view of history states clearly that racially motivated immigration restriction was a tool of progressives. (and to further address your mention of the Know Nothings above, they advocated cultural assimilation, not banning immigration in the long-run) Who supported the Chinese exclusion legislation in the late 1870s and early 1880s? Mostly populists among the West and the South; classical liberals, along with some right-wing machine Republicans such as Conkling and Howe, opposed them. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Sunday, 23:18, April 29, 2023 (EDT)

I agree with you that racially-based immigration restriction is indeed a progressive tool. Through the Progressove Movement's ties to eugenics, progressivism and racially based immigration restrictions can be said to be bedfellows. If nothing else, it is to be regretted that it is not taught in schools enough due to the liberals in charge of the education system that the Progressive Movement and the eugenics movemenr basically went hand-in-hand, as evidenced by people like Margaret Sanger. It is something that should be emphasized more in order to paint a more historically accurate picture of progressivism and show that it is Darwinian in nature. That would save many of our youth from being brainwashed as they are now. I do not deny that several politicians of the time opposed immigration on progressive, race-based grounds. However, my point, broadly speaking, was that not everyone opposed mass immigration during the time for race-based and progressive reasons. Some opposed it for conservative reasons, like Lodge, Coolidge, and Cotton. It could be said that there were a variety of reasons why support for race-based immigration restrictions in the 1920s was high. Some (like the AFL) opposed it for labor-based reasons, others opposed it because they were eugenicists, and yet others opposed it because they feared a lack of cultural assimilation, especially from potential Eastern European anarchists. My point is, not everybody supported Johnson-Reed for the same reasons, so I would argue it is unfair to suggest it necessarily has racist roots. The progressives who were for it may have, but not necessarily the act itself. Some people who supported it were racists, but not everybody. That is what makes it more of a gray thing in my opinion, and not a black and white thing. As for the Know Nothing part, that is an interesting tidbit, though I still would have preferred the Whigs of the time.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1883 and is even more controversial than Johnson-Reed. Some anti-Chinese xenophobia did play a role in the passage of the bill unfortunately, no doubt. Though even then, many were doing it for the purpose of a fear of lack of cultural assimilation (such as President Grover Cleveland, who was by no means a populist, as evidenced by his faction's opposition to WJB in 1896). As the very conservative historian Brion T. McClanahan points out, there was indeed a concern the Chinese were not assimilating, as they were doing things like building Taoist temples in the US. You are right about many working-class populists like Samuel Gompers supporting it at the time, which was likely a reason it went through. As for who opposed it, only a minority of Republicans in the House and a majority in the Senate opposed it, with Senate opposition coming from both Stalwarts (like William B. Allison) and Half-Breeds (like Sherman, Harrison, and Hoar). The part you added about Conkling and Howe is interesting and I believe it, though I think you could argue opposition to it was more of a Northern Republican pro-business thing than necessarily a Stalwart thing, as it was after all a quite questionable piece of federal legislation, even at the time. Regardless, I do not think that the Chinese immigration bills of the 1870s and 1880s should be used to suggest the National Origins Formula or quota system of 1921-1965 is necessarily a completely racist or progressive thing, though I think that it is interesting and important in that it sheds some light on the thought of early progressives and left-wing populist of the time as compared to generally more conservative Northern Republican pro-business advocates, and should be looked at more as it shows that progressives have not always been the American immigrant's best friend, even back in those days. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 02:18, May 3, 2023 (EDT)

A lot of good comments above. In sum: "not everybody supported Johnson-Reed for the same reasons". Yes. There is a thing called "public opinion" that drives support for things like covid lockdowns or Ukraine aid. Some may believe the government is the enforcer of health and safety rules, others that "science" dictates recommendations. Some may believe Ukraine is democratic, others that Russia is a threat. Some might believe Joe Biden is the best qualified man for the job, others that he's just a convenient stop gap measure to prevent Donald Trump until somebody else can be found. Public opinion that drives Congressional action is a sum total mixed bag of popular perceptions and misperceptions, and not necessarily driven by a single ideology. whether the outcome is "racist" is another matter.
The Interstate Highway Act of 1957 created housing shortages to clear way for the Interstate Highway; the housing shortages led to the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These were seen as solutions to problems. HUD created crime-ridden highrise housing projects which, decades later, were seen as racist. So, is the belief that Big government has a role to play in solving all problems "racist"? Perhaps. But good luck convincing "public opinion" of that. RobSGive Peace a chance 04:05, May 3, 2023 (EDT)
Here's how Wikipedia describes the 1924 Act:
"The act formally removed de facto discrimination against Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as Asians, in addition to other non-Western and Northern European ethnic groups"
That's very well written. "de facto discrimination" differs from the Zinn/LT narrative of racist by design. Today we would call it "institutionalized racism". RobSGive Peace a chance 15:53, May 3, 2023 (EDT)
Wall Street bombing, 1920, attributed to Galleanists. World-Telegram photo. Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation/Library of Congress
The 1924 Act was a response to the Wall Street bombing. World War II was a response to the Pearl Harbor bombing. The Patriot Act was a response to 9/11. In all three instance the American people and their government felt they were under attack. Are all these incidents racially motivated by the American people and their demands on Congress for action? Debatable. But Howard Zinn is not the authority.
What made the 1924 Act controversial was, it was the first federal limitation on immigration. Prior to that immigration was a source of revenue for the federal government (before the income tax). The feds charged an entrance processing fee at the gate. Limiting a source of revenue for the federal government seemed crazy to many people, but the price to be paid was tolerating terrorism. This dabate is little different than the debates right now on Biden's open borders. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:13, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
"But Howard Zinn is not the authority." Well, duh. The only person harping over him is you, pointlessly attempting to call me "communist brainwashed" using association fallacies. The fact of the matter is that the direct House sponsor of the 1924 Act was an anti-Jewish white supremacist who appointed progressive Harry H. Laughlin (a later Nazi sympathizer) to a top position in a eugenics organization, and who was influenced by virulently anti-Jewish diplomat Wilbur Carr. You can argue all you like about the national security fearmongering behind the 1924 Act (which really would've been continuously reminiscent of the First Red Scare brought about by the progressive AG Palmer), though the factual record is clear on the racial motivations. Why do you so desperately hide from the truth? —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 22:31, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
That' all very interesting and belongs in their respective bios. But the idea that the American people and their elected representatives all got together and said, "Hey, we're a bunch a racists. Let's pass a piece of racist legislation" probably isn't suitable for CP. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:35, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
Classic association fallacy: "the direct House sponsor of the 1924 Act ...appointed progressive Harry H. Laughlin (a later Nazi sympathizer) to a top position ...". RobSGive Peace a chance 22:40, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
I'm just providing two examples to illustrate the type of person Albert Johnson was. This discussion might actually get somewhere if you'd pay attention to the facts instead of quote mining, grasping at straws, and cowering from reality.
Also, they didn't need to state that directly—the racism was already obvious enough. Mobs, manipulated by the propaganda, hatred, and deception of the Progressive Movement, rallied to the cause of blaming immigrants. The xenophobic bigotry, whether overt or covert, whether among progressives in 1924, Southern segregationists in 1965, or supposed "right-wing" populists in the modern-day, trace back to the Progressive Movement, because they're all a bunch of collectivist leftists. (reusing/adapting a line from Mises here) —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 22:42, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
"reminiscent of the First Red Scare". Duh, the Immigration Act and the so-called "Red Scare" are inseparably bound. The problem is, the terrorism was real and the threat was real. Lenin had declared worldwide revolution to overthrow bourgeois governments. And the immigrants were coming from territories under Bolshevik terrorism. Whether they were victims of terrorism, or communist revolutionaries carrying out Leninist instructions, is why the FBI was created. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:49, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
That... doesn't excuse the flagrantly racist provisions in the 1924 Act. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 22:50, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
Fine. You can include that in a ==Criticism== section along with all your other communist sources and criticism. RobSGive Peace a chance 22:55, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
My sources aren't Communist. You are engaging in what is known as psychological projection. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 22:57, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
No. I've studied this issue, and am familiar with the sources and narratives from various perspectives. I created WP's Comintern article. The immigration law was a response to the Comintern. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:01, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
Oh, you studied this issue? Well then, clearly you missed the fact that the very instigators of the "anti-Communist" First Red Scare were progressives, and that those same progressives enacted immigration restriction with racial motivations. The fact that you deem my arguments as "communist" prove that you don't know what you're talking about—the actual Communist propaganda line is that immigration restriction was pushed by right-wingers, the very argument you've essentially defended this whole time (in essence, I came in to detach the political right from the neo-Marxist slander that it's responsible for historic xenophobic bigotry, and you jump in to counter me), whether you realize it or not. OTOH, I'm arguing, using the sound historical record, that racist immigration restriction was propagated by leftists. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 23:04, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
Let's go here: "the direct House sponsor of the 1924 Act was an anti-Jewish white supremacist." Ok. What year did your source write that? RobSGive Peace a chance 23:08, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
Who cares? The historical reality doesn't change. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 23:16, April 28, 2023 (EDT)

<--

You need to study this closely, and use it. Historical method. And these points:

  1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
  2. Where was it produced (localization)?
  3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
  4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
  5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
  6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

Also:

  1. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
  2. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.

And

  • The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
  • An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

And here Eyewitness evidence

I'll wager $50 your source for that statement is at least 20 years removed from the event (just based upon the language and terminology). The phrase "white supremacist" probably did not originate until the 1950s. The person who made that claim may not have even been alive during the events we're talking about. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:26, April 28, 2023 (EDT)

That's all irrelevant. Who cares when the term "white supremacist" itself became popularized in usage? White supremacy has existed for centuries, and the Immigration Act of 1924 was an example of that. Once again, you are engaging in pointless deflection because I debunked your narrative. —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 23:34, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
You source sounds like a reformer arguing for passage of the 1965 Act, and not a historical reporter on the 1924 Act. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:40, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
We are looking for historical accuracy. Virtually no one stood up in 1924 and said, "this law was written by an anti-Jewish white supremacist". In fact, the 1924 law discriminated against Easter European whites. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:43, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
If you don't believe that there were anti-Jewish motivations behind immigration restriction in the 1920s, then look into what was said by Wilbur Carr and Albert Johnson during that time period. Since you claim to have studied this issue, surely you know what I'm referring to, right? —LT (Matthew 26:52) Saturday, 23:47, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
Yes, yes. I know all about it. The law also was anti-Catholic and anti-Italian. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:51, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
Succinctly put, you are using sources from the post-McCarthy era. And most of those narratives fall into the category of communist propaganda from that era. Whether they are true or not is different matter. But factually, they are non-contemporaneous and suffer from bias. RobSGive Peace a chance 23:56, April 28, 2023 (EDT)
Oh, I see. Citing literal commie propaganda to justify cultist Putin worship is fine for purely expedient reasons, but any source after the "McCarthy era" that exposes the racism of immigration restriction is automatically presumed as commie propaganda and therefore biased. Um, what? —LT (Matthew 26:52) Sunday, 23:18, April 29, 2023 (EDT)
You're arguing apples and oranges. Citing contemporary communists today on contemporary events today is different from citing communist writers 30 years hence about contemporary events today.
Robert Kennedy Jr. said the other day that he's been a climate change activist for 40 years, arguing "free market capitalism" solutions. That's different from the common narratives today that climate change and climate change activism is communist. RobSGive Peace a chance 04:29, May 3, 2023 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965&oldid=1945475"