The government certainly did not know if you had communicable diseases.
While you have a point about the the discrimination new groups face, you ignore an important, blaring, distinction concerning the flavor of immigration. Those who came in through Ellis Island did so legally. Immigration and Illegal Immigration are two different things. Comparing people who took advantage of the first and perpetrate the second is unfair and is comparing apples and bananas.
There were no limitations on immigration to the US until the 20th century. It was impossible to be an illegal immigrant.
Really? And what would you call someone who was denied entry through the legal channels and found another way into the country?
That’s just a tautology. It’s illegal because it’s against the law and it’s against the law because it’s illegal.
The reason most Irish and Italians immigrated legally was because it was possible for them to legally immigrate. The reason most Mexicans immigrate illegally is because it isn’t possible for them to legally immigrate.
Now explain why it was legal for Irish and Italian immigrants to come to America but illegal for Mexican immigrnats to do so.
Excellent. I’m glad you understand the difference to legal and illegal. Perhaps you can explain it to some of the illegals you might encounter. Or friends who are democrats.
So? I really, really, really want a Lamborghini. Just because the system is set up in a way that I may never be able to procure one through legal means doesn’t mean I can steal one. Also, can you name me a few countries where I could emigrate to illegally, even though I can’t do so legally, and expect to stay if found out?
Basically, because we were growing and determined that we needed more bodies, particularly laborers. When we no longer had that need, we curtailed it dramatically.
Imaginary, since nobody was denied entry. I say again: there were no limitations on immigration prior to 1900.
While there is no doubt a point in U.S. history that had no limitations on immigration, I was talking about Ellis Island (feel free to go back and check), which opened in 1892. From Wikipedia: (bolding mine)
So, my point stands.
In that particular case, obviously, those people were stuck on a boat going back the other way.
But what if they were able to switch boats a hundred miles out and come into a town in New England. Once they set foot on land they’f be here illegally, would they not?
Yes. Assuming that they weren’t detained by the customs officials in the town. Now, how many people do you suppose did that?
That’s not the point. The point is that then, as now, it is possible to be here either legally or illegally. That’s what I thought you were objecting to. No?
But I can explain to you why stealing a car is wrong. I take that back - I probably can’t explain it to you. But it’s a simple concept most people would grasp.
What is the equivalent rationale behind banning immigration? Pretty much everybody in this country is here because of immigration and it seems to have worked out pretty well.
Where’d you get that idea? People aren’t sneaking in this country just to break the law. They’re sneaking in here to work. If there were no jobs here, they wouldn’t be coming here. So obviously the need for labor exists.
Huh? Do you not, or can you not, draw a line between legal immigration and illegal immigration? I’m all for the former (on our terms and to address our needs) but coldly against the latter.
While people do not come here for the expressed purpose of breaking the law, they break the law all the same. As far the need for labor existing, you’re wrong. You’re confusing the the need for labor with the desire for cheap labor. They are not the same thing. When we have Unemployment numbers around 1%, we can talk about a need for labor. And even then, we can discuss some combination of increased immigration and a guest-worker program, like Canada has. Which is a smart solution when much of the need for labor is seasonal.
What about the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882? That seems to predate 1900…
Missed the edit window.
The article I linked to above states :
*The Chinese Exclusion Act gave rise to the first great wave of commercial human smuggling, an activity that later spread to include other national and ethnic groups.
Later, the Immigration Act of 1924 would restrict immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian immigrant groups. Until these restrictions were relaxed in the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were forced to live a life apart, and to build a society in which they could survive on their own.
Furthermore, The Chinese Exclusion Act did not address the “problems” that whites were facing; in fact, the Chinese were quickly and eagerly replaced by the Japanese, who presumed the role of the Chinese in society. Unlike the Chinese, some Japanese were even able to climb the rungs of society by setting up businesses or becoming truck farmers. However, the Japanese were later targeted in the National Origins Act of 1924, which banned immigration from east Asia entirely.*
As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Like I’ve said, you’re back to saying illegal immigration is bad because it’s illegal.
Why should it be illegal for Mexicans to immigrate to America?
I once saw a cartoon titled “A Short History of Immigration”:
PANEL 1:
Guy #1: “What a beautiful spot!”
Guy #2: "Hey, I was here first!’
PANEL 2:
[They fight.]
PANEL 3:
Guy #2: “Puff-puff All right, you can stay!”
PANEL 4:
Guy #3: “What a beautiful spot!”
Guy #1 & Guy #2: “Hey, we were here first!”
Because the U.S. is a sovereign nation. I’m really having a hard time understanding your point. You didn’t answer my question, which would be helpful: do you or do you not make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration.
Additionally, do you think a nation has a right to control its borders?