Vanguard News Network

You know, old_dutch, you are treading in “anti” territory, and you have been for some time. First, you say that the Klan founded the Federal Reserve (!!), and now you say this.

I’m curious. What did old_douche say?

Everything the Jew does is done, either conciously or unconciously, with the intention of harming the GOYIM. Schlei couldn’t be more Jewish if he tried. Just look at that sly, cruel Oriental grin on his sinster, Asiatic face. No fully-evolved human can look like that.

I think the Wigger thing is starting to die out. A lot of White teenagers are listening to AC/DC these days, not Tupac or Puffy or jigaboo stuff like that.

And, of course, “The Swimmer” himself, “the Duke of Chappaquiddick”, the depraved, flea-bitten “Lion” of the Senate, none other than Ted “the Sleazebag” Kennedy championed the 1965 Senate “Immigration Reform” law. He’s no Jew, but he works HAND IN GLOVE WITH THEM.

Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kennedy cautiously stepped out on immigration in the 1950s, sensing that a liberalization stance would gather vital ethnic voting blocs for his long-planned run for the presidency. His work on a refugee bill caught the attention of officials of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, who convinced Kennedy to become an author of a pamphlet on immigration, with the help of an ADL-supplied historian, Arthur Mann, and Kennedy’s staff. The result was “A Nation of Immigrants”, a 1958 bouquet of praise for the contributions of immigrants and a call for an end to the National Origins System. The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates, had made a golden alliance. [Jewish Bulletin 7/23/93]

John F. Kennedy was no crusader on immigration (or anything else), but he was an activist young president comfortable with immigration reform as part of his agenda, and elected on a party platform that pledged elimination of the national origins system.

Kennedy’s victory had been narrow, and he moved very slowly on sensitive issues, especially those where he expected formidable resistance. That would come from, among others, Francis Walter, but his death in May 1963 came just as Kennedy was finally moving on civil rights legislation, and it seemed natural to link the two causes whose joint target, by long agreement among liberals, was “discrimination”. Kennedy sent a special message on immigration to Congress in July, asking for repeal of a policy that “discriminates among applicants for admission into the U.S. on the basis of the accident of birth.”…….

This initiative, along with the rest of the Kennedy program, was inherited by Lyndon Johnson . He also inherited Kennedy’s determined reformist advisors on immigration, among them: Myer Feldman, Norbert Schlei, and Abba Schwarz. The latter convinced the new President to endorse reform and to hold a meeting with ethnic leaders where Johnson repeated the key slogan of the attack on the national origins system: “We ought to never ask, “In what country were you born.?” 6 Still, expansionist reformers privately were pessimistic. In the words of the American Jewish Committee’s lobbyist in Washington, “there is no great public demand for immigration reform” which “is a very minor issue.”

It was indeed a minor issue to the public, not on the radar screen in a decade overheating with social movements and an escalating war in southeast Asia. There was emerging on the immigration question a pattern that could be found on many issues: elite opinionmakers selected a problem and a liberal policy solution, while grassroots opinion, unfocussed and marginalized, ran strongly the other way. Editorials in papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post, or in national magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post denounced the national origins system as the equivalent of Jim Crow, and endorsed repeal of it

Passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barred discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religion, sex, and “national origin.” This language in the civil rights legislation attracted frowning attention to the immigration status quo. How could the U.S. exert world leadership, Congressman Emanuel Celler asked, if our current immigration system was “a gratuitous insult to many nations” because of its race-conscious basis? The national origins system was not based on race but nationality, but in the intense climate of the civil rights crusade the two were easily elided into equivalent evils.

The National Origins System was now on the defensive, joined at the hip with Jim Crow. The defenders of the national origins system …seemed intellectually on the defensive.. .Visa Office head, Robert C. Alexander [said] in the American Legion Magazine in 1956: “What do the opponents of the national origins quota system want when they glibly advocate action which would result in a change in the ethnological composition of our people . . . perhaps they should tell us, what is wrong with our national origins?”

Sen. Ervin argued [that] “To put all the earth’s peoples on the same basis as prospective immigrants was to discriminate against the “people from England . . . France . . . Germany . . . Holland” who had first settled and shaped the country.” 11 Senator Byrd (among others) supported Ervin: “Why should the U.S. be the only advanced nation in the world today to develop a guilt complex concerning its immigration policies?”12

The American population who would have approved of this argument were mostly dead; and those living, by contrast to their ancestors in 1921-28, had little interest in immigration issues or knowledge of what was being proposed. The patriotic societies, the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution …presented their traditional opposition but did not seem to exert much influence over the average legislator — especially when so many of these groups showed little knowledge of the legislation and seemed mostly concerned with the threat of communist subversives … The restrictions of the 1920s had lost important elements of their core support. A chief sponsor of limiting immigration had been organized labor. But in the 1950s, AFL-CIO leadership — though not the rank-and-file — had begun to shift on immigration…The same was true of another component of the potential restrictionist coalition. African-American leaders in the1960s were beginning a move toward political solidarity with all the world’s “people of color”…

A formidable coalition had mobilized [favoring] repeal of the old law and for a vaguely defined “liberalization.” The coalition included the numerous “Volags” from religious denominations, along with organizations claiming to represent the ethnic groups associated with the New Immigration. Joining them were business leaders, including western “big agriculture.” Sympathetic to these lobbying groups were most liberals, for whom immigration reform had surfaced as a smaller theatre of the civil rights movement, and one which did not involve the physical dangers of marching in Mississippi.

Sen. Ervin attempted to get the best bargain possible …asking pointed questions about the legislation’s impact on overall numbers… He was given reassuring and alarmingly wrong estimates. … On the question of Latin American immigration, Attorney General Katzenbach was obviously ignorant … that Mexico’s population had nearly doubled between 1940 and 1960. In the last decade, 400,000 Mexicans had migrated to the U.S. as 3 million braceros crossed the border seasonally. Yet Katzenbach, ignorant of all this, stated that “there is not much pressure to come to the United States from those countries.”

The two core ideas of the restrictionists — that America was better off without large-scale immigration and that the existing makeup of the American people should be preserved — had not been challenged. Indeed, they were explicitly reaffirmed. Attorney General Robert Kennedy said in Senate hearings in 1964 that abolishing the restrictions on the Asia-Pacific Triangle would result in “approximately 5,000 [immigrants] . . .after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear.” As a Senator in 1965, he testified that … “The [proposed new] distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States,” and “the net increase attributable to this bill would be at most 50,000 a year” “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually,” prophesied Sen. Edward Kennedy: “Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.”

Yet, how could immigration reformers change a policy regime that was widely popular? A Harris Poll released in May 1965, showed the public “strongly opposed to easing of immigration laws” by a 2 to 1 margin.

The South-West coalition of the 1920s had shattered. The South, obsessively defending Jim Crow, was politically isolated and on the losing side of every national issue. The Senate bill passed by a vote of 76 to 18, all but two of the negative votes coming from southerners.

The Immigration Act of 1965 was not given much contemporary attention in a decade of social upheaval and a war in Vietnam, and it is routinely allotted one of two sentences in history textbooks.

This emphasis will change, and attention to the 1965 act will grow, because it represents a demographic turning point in American history. .Passage of time may position the 1965 immigration law as the Great Society’s most nation-changing single act,

Debating American Immigration, 1882–present: 1882-Present, By Roger Daniels, Otis L. Graham
[full article] http://books.google.com/books?id=bIqtPpjCzGQC&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html