ClimateSanity
New member
Let me ask again and hopefully you will answer this time. Why don't you think there was ever a single American culture?
Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
You don't even know what the point of the act was that you cite as the real reason for using 1965?
lain: Spoiler
ClimateSanity
New member
If you are saying the point of the legislation was to remove racism from our immigration policy, it's irrelevant to my question.You don't even know what the point of the act was that you cite as the real reason for using 1965?
Spoiler
Just because the murdering skirt chaser Kennedy found our immigration policy to be racist doesn't make it so. You seem to be of a mindset that says if Kennedy says it....that settles it....it's fact.
Both you and the woman drowner need to make your case that our immigration policy was racist before that legislation.
ClimateSanity
New member
Not answered again. You make fun of my post and mock it and yet fail to prove me wrong. Just more rabbit trails and mind reading and declaration.
You're the one caught up in your question. So what was your notion of the American culture that lived pre and died after 1965? You keep asking me to define a thing you say was present, wasn't racial, and remains unparticularlized by you. It's your flag. You plant it.
It still wasn't his bill, but your need to run down that hole speaks volumes.
Nothing in anything I wrote remotely justifies any part of that. What did Kennedy say? I couldn't tell you. I know he worked for it, but didn't author it. That's about it.
You said that was the point of your 1965 death of a culture you won't define with any particularity (while repeatedly trying to get me to do it for you) and I just chuckled at you for not appearing to understand much of anything to do with your position. Certainly not evidencing any PARTICULAR understanding.
The Hart-Celler Act blew up the Johnson-Reed Act.
[FONT="]
As historian John Higham observed in his account of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act: "Nativists during this period argued that the so-called new immigration from southern and eastern Europe was racially inferior to the 'old immigration' from northern and western Europe. It was therefore polluting the nation's bloodstream."1[/FONT]
[FONT="]The 1924 law established a quota system based on national origins. It directed nearly 70 percent of the immigration slots to northern Europeans, cutting back drastically on immigration from southern and eastern Europe. It maintained formidable barriers against immigration from Asia and Africa, while leaving immigration from the Western Hemisphere unrestricted — a gesture of hemispheric solidarity that also served the cheap-labor interests of American employers. - Center for Immigration Studies, 2015
[/FONT]
ClimateSanity
New member
You're the one caught up in your question......town. so, if I have to beg you to answer my question it means I'm caught up in it??? You also made that statement as if I'm the problem for demanding answers. If you refuse to answer my question, just say so. Just don't pretend like you did answer because you made a reply with stuff I never asked about. A reply does not equal an answer.
ClimateSanity
New member
You keep asking me to define a thing you say was present, wasn't racial, and remains unparticularlized by you. It's your flag. You plant it......town.
I made a post and you mocked it without saying why. I assume you mocked it because you don't believe there ever was a single American culture. If that was not one of the things you were mocking, then please clearly list the reasons you mocked my post.
I made a post and you mocked it without saying why. I assume you mocked it because you don't believe there ever was a single American culture. If that was not one of the things you were mocking, then please clearly list the reasons you mocked my post.
ClimateSanity
New member
It still wasn't his bill, but your need to run down that hole speaks volumes. .....town
His name was not on the bill. Does that mean he wasn't the main agitator for its passage? If Kennedy was not who you say claimed prior immigration policy was racist, then who was it that made the claim? If you can't do that, why do you say that was the point of the legislation? Beyond all that, what makes you believe prior immigration policy was racist?
His name was not on the bill. Does that mean he wasn't the main agitator for its passage? If Kennedy was not who you say claimed prior immigration policy was racist, then who was it that made the claim? If you can't do that, why do you say that was the point of the legislation? Beyond all that, what makes you believe prior immigration policy was racist?
ClimateSanity
New member
You said that was the point of your 1965 death of a culture you won't define with any particularity (while repeatedly trying to get me to do it for you) and I just chuckled at you for not appearing to understand much of anything to do with your position. Certainly not evidencing any PARTICULAR understanding......town.
So you mocked the post because you don't believe i understand what I'm talking about? Spell out what it is you think you understand and that I don't.
So you mocked the post because you don't believe i understand what I'm talking about? Spell out what it is you think you understand and that I don't.
ClimateSanity
New member
The Hart-Celler Act blew up the Johnson-Reed Act......town.
Was this the sole purpose of the 1965 legislation? If so, you have a point. The big issue is what was the new policy that was put in place? And more importantly, what were the objectives of the new legislation? Was it solely to remove prior racist provisions or were there other reasons?
Most importantly of all to know is what the objective of immigration policy was prior to 1965. Was it merely to keep out " low life scum from southern Europe and Africa" or was there a deeper set of values they were trying to follow?
Do you know any of this? Do you care? I doubt it. It seems racism is the only issue that you care about. Do you care about the way of life that developed in America that made it radically different than the rest of the world? Don't you want an immigration system that seeks to do its part in maintaining that superior way of life?
Was this the sole purpose of the 1965 legislation? If so, you have a point. The big issue is what was the new policy that was put in place? And more importantly, what were the objectives of the new legislation? Was it solely to remove prior racist provisions or were there other reasons?
Most importantly of all to know is what the objective of immigration policy was prior to 1965. Was it merely to keep out " low life scum from southern Europe and Africa" or was there a deeper set of values they were trying to follow?
Do you know any of this? Do you care? I doubt it. It seems racism is the only issue that you care about. Do you care about the way of life that developed in America that made it radically different than the rest of the world? Don't you want an immigration system that seeks to do its part in maintaining that superior way of life?
Rather, if you advance a monolithic cultural that "allows" others to exist, along with a sudden shift down to the very year in question, without presenting any particulars that would define that culture, define the particulars of the instrumental shift, well, then it's time for you to step out of the shadow of your conviction and tell everyone precisely what constituted the culture you claim existed, what particularly ended it and how.
Otherwise you aren't really saying anything, if repeatedly.
Agitator? That's an interesting choice of words, historically speaking. I said he worked to see it passed. You called it his. It wasn't. Not sure why any of that matters except as another distraction while you fail to get into what you mean precisely.
I literally quoted an esteemed historian on the point of the immigration policy. Kennedy is your fixation and rabbit hole to run into. Here it is, again:
The Hart-Celler Act blew up the Johnson-Reed Act.
As historian John Higham [not to be confused with Ted Kennedy] observed in his account of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act: "Nativists during this period argued that the so-called new immigration from southern and eastern Europe was racially inferior to the 'old immigration' from northern and western Europe. It was therefore polluting the nation's bloodstream."1
And what did this prior act do, pray tell?
And what did this prior act do, pray tell?
The 1924 law established a quota system based on national origins. It directed nearly 70 percent of the immigration slots to northern Europeans, cutting back drastically on immigration from southern and eastern Europe. It maintained formidable barriers against immigration from Asia and Africa, while leaving immigration from the Western Hemisphere unrestricted — a gesture of hemispheric solidarity that also served the cheap-labor interests of American employers. - Center for Immigration Studies, 2015
Northern Europeans. Care to take a stab at their racial profile? And the new, also-not-drafted-by-a-Kennedy act did what again?
It abolished the quota system, which critics condemned as a racist contradiction of fundamental American values. By liberalizing the rules for immigration, especially by prioritizing family reunification, it also stimulated rapid growth of immigration numbers...
"The 1965 immigration law quickly transformed the ethnic portrait of the United States,"2 scholars have noted. At first the new immigration came largely from southern Europe, especially Italy. But that stream played out in about a decade...By 1980, most immigrants were coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa — in numbers far greater than the annual average of 300,000 that had prevailed during the 1960s. - Center for Immigration Studies, 2015
Now that's what an answer with particulars looks like.
No, but it's a pretty important one. It only seems singular to people who don't pay attention. Abortion matters to me. How Christians witness and behave in life matters to me. Affordable healthcare matters. Gun rights matter. The right to representation matters to me. All sorts of things. But right now we appear to largely be talking around the first. We'll see when or if you ever support your general battle cry with particulars.
They allowed someone who is a known serial liar and con-man to deceive them. Their vote is helping to destroy the country. I for one do not feel sorry for any one of them who will end up worse off due to their own foolishness.
:angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob:
Desperate people who feel that they are literally drowning and are willing grasp hold of anybody or anything in the hope of being rescued!
"Donald J." may be a total loss as a president, but has been reasonably successful in sales and promoting his brand!
:angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob::angrymob:
Because there are certain fish that shouldn't be let off the hook easily, CS made what seemed to me a fairly (if veiled) racist supposition about "American Culture." One that "allowed" "subcultures" to exist with it and how that changed in 1965.
Then postured outrage for being mocked on the advance.
And at first blush he appeared to have a counter.
Except that he chose the year because of the Hart-Celler Act. What did the Act do? It abolished fairly racist immigration policy that had given favorable treatment to northern Europeans while significantly limiting immigration from countries with a majority of non-white peoples.
Which was nearly lost in CS's new tactic, demanding I see and define this "Amercian culture" he said existed until that Act and permitted other subcultures to exist within it.
So while huffing and puffing about race not being the card he played, the only card he managed to put on the table was steeped in it and when called upon, repeatedly, to name what else he could have been speaking to...crickets.
The particulars I called for? A definition of that American culture that wouldn't be steeped in race along with a reading of why Hart-Celler ended it.
And we're still waiting.
Then postured outrage for being mocked on the advance.
And at first blush he appeared to have a counter.
Except that he chose the year because of the Hart-Celler Act. What did the Act do? It abolished fairly racist immigration policy that had given favorable treatment to northern Europeans while significantly limiting immigration from countries with a majority of non-white peoples.
"The 1965 immigration law quickly transformed the ethnic portrait of the United States,"
2 scholars have noted. At first the new immigration came largely from southern Europe, especially Italy. But that stream played out in about a decade...By 1980, most immigrants were coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa — in numbers far greater than the annual average of 300,000 that had prevailed during the 1960s. - Center for Immigration Studies, 2015
Which was nearly lost in CS's new tactic, demanding I see and define this "Amercian culture" he said existed until that Act and permitted other subcultures to exist within it.
So while huffing and puffing about race not being the card he played, the only card he managed to put on the table was steeped in it and when called upon, repeatedly, to name what else he could have been speaking to...crickets.
No, but it's a pretty important one...right now we appear to largely be talking around [the essentially racist notion by CS]. We'll see when or if you ever support your general battle cry with particulars.
The particulars I called for? A definition of that American culture that wouldn't be steeped in race along with a reading of why Hart-Celler ended it.
And we're still waiting.
Last edited: