I was offering being too full or having too little money as possible justifications for you to consider.
They would justify it, no?
I don't see why.
Well, if you run out of money then your whole country collapses. And then you can't help anybody.
Its too full when you're having trouble keeping a healthy environment for the immigrants.
Out of curiosity, have you ever played a civilization simulator?
So it will just be a feeling?
It was a thought. To your question...
It's a matter of being unabashedly committed to the basic founding principles of this country, that all people are created equal, entitled to freedom, liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness, and the inalienable rights of ALL people ...
The
founding principles? No, those were for white people. Mostly white male land-owners.
But yes, we have expanded on it quite a bit since then.
... that means that the people who just happen to live in the US are no more special than other people ... there is no citizenship test for people born here ...
Well, that's not what
that meant, but I get what you're saying.
But those laws did not change because something dreadful happened or because we ran out of room,
How do you know?
I now have reason to read your links, so I will, but I don't have the time at the moment. I'll get to it tomorrow.
I can just reply to that post again, if you want to wait, or I can throw it in to a reply to your reply to this if you can't.
they changed because of xenophobia and fear.
What do you mean by xenophobia? The definitions I see include qualifiers like unreasonable and irrational.
If there's good reasons for the laws, then I don't they should be called xenophobic.
But those laws did not change because something dreadful happened or because we ran out of room, they changed because of xenophobia and fear.
Anyways, that's quite a case to build. Do you have anything else to support it besides links to those laws?
ABE:
The first laws were fairly simple:
quote:
18th century
Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character".
The Naturalization Act of 1795 increased the residency requirement to five years residence and added a requirement to give a three years notice of intention to apply for citizenship, and the Naturalization Act of 1798 further increased the residency requirement to 14 years and required five years notice of intent to apply for citizenship.
The ""free white persons"" is fairly consistent with the Constitution restrictions on voting rights.
Okay, so "in the beginning", citizenship was only for white people. And, you had to apply; They didn't have to give it to you if they didn't want to. If they didn't think you had a good enough moral character, then that was reason enough to deny you citizenship.
So, as I said, that's not really going to work today.
The first restrictive\exclusive immigration laws were ~ 1900:
quote:
19th Century
After the immigration of 123,000 Chinese in the 1870s, who joined the 105,000 who had immigrated between 1850 and 1870, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 which specifically limited further Chinese immigration. ...
The act excluded Chinese laborers from immigrating to the United States for ten years and was the first immigration law passed by Congress that targeted a specific ethnic group. ...
If you look into the
background of that act, you'll find stuff like:
quote:
The first significant Chinese immigration to North America began with the California Gold Rush of 1848-1855 and continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the First Transcontinental Railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated, if not well received.[1] As gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased.
So they thought they were running out of money. Not that
that rules out xenophobia too.
I thought it was interesting that the people who pushed for allowing the Chinese to immigrate did so not because they were unabashedly committed to the inalienable rights of ALL people, but instead because of the money they could make off these people:
quote:
In the early 1850s, there was resistance to the idea of excluding Chinese migrant workers from immigration, because they provided essential tax revenue which helped fill the fiscal gap of California.
For this one:
quote:
History
Restriction of Southern and Eastern European immigration was first proposed in 1909 by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.[3]
In the wake of the Post-World War I recession, many Americans believed that bringing in more immigrants from other nations would only make the unemployment rate higher. The Red Scare of 1919—1921 had fueled xenophobic fears of foreign radicals migrating to undermine American values and provoke an uprising like Russia's 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.[4] The number of immigrants entering the United States decreased for about a year from July 1919 to June 1920 but also doubled the year after that (Cannato 331).[5]
I do see the whole "fear" thing, but if it is warranted fear, and the Bolshevik Revolution was something they didn't want happening here, then I'm not so sure that fear is unreasonable or irrational and, thus, I don't think it should be called xenophobic.
In hind sight, it may appear unwarranted, but the people living in those times don't have that luxury. I don't think its fair to just assume that they were "hating others". Perhaps they did have good reasons for wanting to preserve that "American homogeneity". I don't know, I'll have to look into it more.
Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE
™ Version 4.2
(1)
