Sunday, November 25, 2007

Senator Chandler speaks out on Immigration

The Russian Jews are swarming to this country, and I think they are not desirable immigrants, as I think of the Hungarians and many of the Italians. . . . New York City is vitally interested in this question. The Jewish immigrants are not agriculturists. They do not go Wast. They stay in the seaboard cities. They swarm into New York City. . . . Public sentiment has not yet been strong enough to make it possible to pass a law making new exclusions. But shall we receive a whole nation of Jews as Jews, who are not desirable citizens; and if we object and argue the question, shall we be vilified by you because we even venture to use the word "Jews"?
He also argues that if the huge wave of East European Jewish immigration over the past two years continues, the United States faces epidemic disease, economic ruin and a destruction of the labor market.

It was 1893.

(Thanks to Quarantine!, by Howard Markel, Johns Hopkins University Press (1997), pp. 166-7)


Blogger twominutehate said...

There was one word missing from your post, and that was "illegal". The majority of Ellis Island immigrants from that era, whether they were from Italy, Ireland, or of Jewish decent - they came over here legally. That generation also wanted to be a part of the American culture, while still keeping their past intact.

Racism will never go away. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it on this one. There always be an element that doesn't like someone for whatever reason. Although some current anti-immigrant voices are bigots, the majority are not. Most people who are concerned and disagree with the current direction, are average people of all races and background. Their problem is the color of the illegals, but because that WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS ANY LONGER.

11/25/2007 10:10 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Oh, 2, you're kidding, aren't you? Have you looked at the immigration laws back then? You do realize that "legal" immigration pretty much meant buying a ticket on a boat, don't you?

The immigration barriers built up by Senator Chandler and people like you are the cause of illegal immigration, not any change in the morality of the immigrants.

11/25/2007 10:14 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

oh, and your "wanted to be part of the American culture" line is just silly. Ever seen Lindsborg, KS? Hermann, MO? Ever talk to my Aunt Till? Ever been to a big city's Chinatown?

11/25/2007 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Do you support amnesty for those that have crossed our borders illegally?

If so, are there any other laws that people should violate and expect amnesty?

11/25/2007 10:32 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

1. In some form, yes.

2. "Expect?" No. Unless you're talking about Republican-favored telecommunications companies, or war contractors, or any corporation in bed with Republicans, in which case, yes, their amnesty is a matter of utmost national security, and should be honored more than the rule of law.

11/25/2007 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here. All so concerned can watch the border now to make sure no more get across.

11/25/2007 11:05 AM  
Blogger Big Muddy said...

This is very similar to Franklin's views on German immigrants:

"The Observation concerning the Importation of Germans in too great Numbers into Pennsylvania, is, I believe, a very just one. This will in a few Years become a German Colony: Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their's, or live as in a foreign Country. Already the English begin to quit particular Neighbourhoods surrounded by Dutch, being made uneasy by the Disagreeableness of dissonant Manners; and in Time, Numbers will probably quit the Province for the same Reason."

Letter to the printer James Parker of 20 March 1750 (Papers of Benjamin Franklin, Volume 4, page: 120; quoted from Andreas Brinck, "Die deutsche Auswanderungswelle in die britischen Kolonien Nordamerikas um die Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts", Stuttgart: Steiner 1993, page 12).

Another letter from the year 1753 makes it apparent that the aversion and the fear of foreigners result from political disappointment which the subsequent co-founder of America brought against German immigrants. The immigrants had only shown little interest in the planned defence-society. Therewith Franklin had failed to mobilise the German immigrants against the French:

"Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation, and as Ignorance is often attended with Credulity(...) and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, 'tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain(...) Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it(...) The French who watch all advantages, are now themselves making a German settlement back of us in the Illinois Country, and by means of those Germans they may in time come to an understanding with ours, and indeed in the last war our Germans showed a general disposition that seems to bode us no good".

Letter to Peter Collinson of 9 Mai 1753 (Papers of Benjamin Franklin, Volume 4, pages 483-485, quoted from: Brinck 1993, page 10.)

11/25/2007 11:18 AM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

21 Immigration Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Statutes-at-Large 1084)
The first comprehensive law for national control of immigration. Provisions:
a. Established the Bureau of Immigration under the Treasury Department to administer all immigration laws (except the Chinese Exclusion Act).
b. Further restricted immigration by adding to the inadmissible classes persons likely to become public charges, persons suffering from certain contagious disease, felons, persons convicted of other crimes or misdemeanors, polygamists, aliens assisted by others by payment of passage, and forbade the encouragement of immigration by means of advertisement.
c. Allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe rules for inspection along the borders of Canada, British Columbia, and Mexico so as not to obstruct or unnecessarily delay, impede, or annoy passengers in ordinary travel between these countries and the United States.
d. Directed the deportation of any alien who entered the United States unlawfully.
22 Act of March 3, 1893 (27 Statutes-at-Large 570)
a. Added to the reporting requirements regarding alien arrivals to the United States such new information as occupation, marital status, ability to read or write, amount of money in possession, and facts regarding physical and mental health. This information was needed to determine admissibility according to the expanding list of grounds for exclusion.
b. Established boards of special inquiry to decide the admissibility of alien arrivals.
Source: US gov

11/25/2007 11:29 AM  
Blogger Dan said...


Are you attempting to act as though the legal immigration process for an Irish immigrant in 1891 was equivalent to what a Mexican immigrant faces today?

11/25/2007 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your obviously sarcastic political commentary referencing Republican-favored telecommunications companies, or war contractors, or any corporation in bed with Republicans is duly noted.

Could you please expand on the form of amnesty that you think should be granted to those that cross our borders illegally, along with your reasoning?

Many of the quotations presented may not be “politically correct”, but they were the genuine sentiment of those that helped to create this country. Do you think this country would be better off if they had refrained from expressing their views?

“Real valor consists not in being insensible to danger, but in being prompt to confront and disarm it.” —Sir Walter Scott

In the early years of this country, immigration control had a legitimate purpose.

Should immigration control be eliminated?

As long as we are presenting quotes from 100 to over 200 years ago; do you think we could look at a quote from any our past great leaders that would appear ridiculous or at least insensitive by today’s standards?

11/25/2007 11:47 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

They're here. They're contributing to society, and there's no way we're going to send them all back. So let's bring them into the mainstream and accept them, so they can participate fully and legally in our system. I'm not an expert on exactly what system to use, but use something so that they no longer live in the lawless dark shadows.

My point in presenting the quotation, and I suspect Big Muddy's point as well, is that those awful Jews and awful Germans did not bring about the devastation predicted by frightened people like Chandler, Franklin, or you.

11/25/2007 12:01 PM  
Anonymous blue monkey said...

I heard some right-wing idiot proposed granting the current illegal immigrants citizen status but recommended a grace period in which they would not be able to vote.

Don't they know that we need their votes so that we can win the election.

Tell your representatives where they can stick that idea.

11/25/2007 1:11 PM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

Dan - I'm not comparing Irish to Mexicans or any other ethnicity. I was simply quoting the law from the exact same time period that you said (comment 2) that legal immigration pretty much meant buying a ticket on a boat. As you can see, that was not the case then and it's not the case today. Legal immigrants know the path to citizenship is an arduous process.

Illegal immigrants simply circumvent the whole process by overstaying their visas or illegally crossing the border. Many work and because they work and spend money here, some people think that's enough to qualify them for an immediate green card followed by citizenship. I don't agree and I don't agree whether they're Mexican or Lithuanian or Canadian.

In the 80's we had the same situation and granted amnesty. What happened? Millions upon millions more came and we're in the same, if not worse, situation now.

If we don't enforce our laws now, we may as well throw open the borders to an unlimited number of people in the world who want to come here and a country without borders is no longer a country.

11/25/2007 2:31 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

No, Travelingal, you've proven no such thing - not even close. Fact is, if you got on a boat in Ireland and could pay for first or second class passage, you could count on automatic admission. Legal immigration is truly an arduous process now-a-days. It was not even a challenging process back then.

11/25/2007 3:07 PM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

I don't believe I have to "prove" anything. I said the process is and was arduous. Granted it takes longer today for legal immigrants. Here's a little history:

The Process
As the immigrants arrived in the Ellis Island Great Hall, exhausted and overwhelmed from their long journey, they were herded through inspections. They knew that in order to gain entry to the United States, they needed to be disease-free and prove the ability to earn their way in their new home.

Inspectors examined them, looking for any sign of illness, and those with suspicious symptoms were marked and detained for further inspection. They were also asked a myriad of questions as to their origins, their past, how much money they had, where they were going, and their intentions in America.

Many were detained for various reasons, and some had to have relatives come to claim them. About two percent were turned back. In these heartbreaking cases, families were often forced to decide on the spot whether to split up or go back with those that were denied access.

Once they passed the inspections, immigrants collected their baggage and exchanged their money for U.S. currency. There was also a railroad agent available from whom they could purchase tickets for the next leg of their journey.

It is important to note that no records are known to have been kept of the immigrant processing at either Castle Garden or Ellis Island. Passenger lists are typically the only actual records available of immigrant trips to America.

The Beginning of the End
The National Origins Act in 1924 served to drastically reduce the immigration flow to this country, and subsequently through Ellis Island. It set up discriminatory quotas, and foreigners wishing to relocate permanently to the United States were required to go to U.S. consulates to apply for immigrant visas before they came over. Temporary non-immigrant visas were also available for those who only wished to travel to the country for a short time. Visas had to be presented on arrival, and immigrant visas were forwarded to the INS headquarters in Washington, DC.

This and subsequent restrictions added by a revision to the National Origins Act in 1929, which further reduced the maximum number of admissions to the country, reduced the flow of immigrants to a trickle.

11/25/2007 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Mammy said...

I agree with dan.

11/25/2007 5:54 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

Maybe the Jews and the Germans and the Irish WERE legal immigrants. Didn't make them any less feared and hated. Dire consequences were predicted and failed to come to pass.

But the Columbus was an illegal immigrant.

The Pilgrams were illegal immigrants.

The Native American prophecies about the coming of the White Man held more truth than today's fear mongers:

"This is the First Sign: We are told of the coming of the white-skinned men, like Pahana, but not living like Pahana men who took the land that was not theirs. And men who struck their enemies with thunder.

"This is the Second Sign: Our lands will see the coming of spinning wheels filled with voices. In his youth, my father saw this prophecy come true with his eyes -- the white men bringing their families in wagons across the prairies."

"This is the Third Sign: A strange beast like a buffalo but with great long horns, will overrun the land in large numbers. These White Feather saw with his eyes -- the coming of the white men's cattle."

"This is the Fourth Sign: The land will be crossed by snakes of iron."

"This is the Fifth Sign: The land shall be criss-crossed by a giant spider's web."

"This is the Sixth sign: The land shall be criss-crossed with rivers of stone that make pictures in the sun."

"This is the Seventh Sign: You will hear of the sea turning black, and many living things dying because of it."

11/25/2007 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"But the Columbus was an illegal immigrant."

"The Pilgrams were illegal immigrants."

Uninvited- Yes, Illegal - No

The prophecy of the Hopi's is interesting, but really doesn't have anything to do with supporting blanket amnesty for crimes committed by a certain class or ethnic origin.

The problem with illegal immigrants is a result of our failure to protect our borders. A mass influx of illegal immigrants sure didn't take place after George W. took office. Now that this country is pretty evenly divided along political lines, citizenship has become a means of securing more votes.

I've been looking for articles from pre-George W that push for amnesty, but haven't found much.

We are a nation of immigrants and of laws. Just as those who obey our laws are welcome, those who break them must face the consequences.

11/25/2007 7:00 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

anon 7:00 - "The problem with illegal immigrants is a result of our failure to protect our borders."

Which borders are you refering to?

The borders of 1620? 1776? 1804? 1812?

What about the borders of 1958?

Fucking Alaskans and Hawaiians!

We invited immigrants here by looking the other way, paying them to do jobs that YOU and YOUR CHILDREN felt were "beneath you", gladly paying the artificially low prices on fruits, vegatables, roofing, landscaping and other services that they provide.

"Just as those who obey our laws are welcome, those who break them must face the consequences."

So, are you ready for Confession? When was the last time you went down to your local police station and fessed up to every red light you ran, every parking meter you stiffed, every speeding limit you exceeded, every time you drove home froma bar or a sporting event while impaired?

After all, "those who break them [our laws] must face the consequences"

11/25/2007 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Sorry, I forgot to give credit for my last statement.

"We are a nation of immigrants and of laws. Just as those who obey our laws are welcome, those who break them must face the consequences" - Bill Clinton, June 1997

11/25/2007 7:21 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

anon 7:21

So what?!

The fact that Bill Clinton was the source of your quote in no way refutes the logic of my position.

Are you able to actually read a statement, analyze the content, assimilate and critique the substance based on an in-depth knowledge of world history and philosophy?

Or are you so immersed in the shallow world of Fox News that you are only able to regurgitate Rush Dittohead Talking Points as if they actually had some relevance to the Real World?

What point are you trying to make?

11/25/2007 7:37 PM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

XO I don't know what world you live in but I grew up in a world where my ancestors worked by the plow. Even I threw bales of hay and picked strawberries by hand in the summertime as well as washing dishes at the local diner. Today as I speak several of my neighbors work in construction doing the jobs you say are beneath us and by the way, they're wondering where their next job is coming from. Construction did pay well once upon a time.

Well, we're not going to solve the illegal immigration problem via this blog. I guess the best we can do is to agree to disagree like the rest of the country.

11/25/2007 8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


My point is; this amnesty for illegal immigrants only came up after the Democrats discovered that they could gain lots of votes from the new citizens.

Where was all this need for amnesty when Bill Clinton was in office?

If the uninformed vote is what we want in our politics, there are plenty of those votes to go around.

Quoting the history of bias in our nations past does nothing to get me to support amnesty for those that take because we didn't just give it voluntarily.

Give me a reasonable argument to support crossing the border illegally (ie. I was gonna die, or I was gonna be tortured) and I'll consider it, but because they wouldn't let us do it legally is not a reasonable argument.

11/25/2007 8:05 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

travel - I spent 11 years researching my geneaology. I can trace more than half a dozen lines that date back to the early 1700's or late 1600's.

No governors, no aristocracy, no prominant places in history.

As far as I can tell, every ancestor I had were poor, illiterate dirt farmers who lived hard, worked hard, died young and left behind a bunch of kids who lived hard, worked hard, died young, and left behind a bunch of kids. For about 8 or 9 generations.

Just like all of the "horrible, scary, illegal, brown people" that seem to inspire such fear in all of the well ensconced, middle-classed white folk with well-manicured lawns, cheap salads, year-round-fresh-fruit and leak-free roofs.

I don't know if my ancestors came here "legally" or not.

Are indentured servants considered "legal immigrants"?

Would they be considered legal immigrants by today's standards?

Can you apply modern legal standards to things that happened hundreds of years ago?

If The United States acquired, through war or purchase, a plot of land that contained "foreigners", do they automatically become citizens or do we expell them and call them and their descendants foreigners?

Where do you draw the line?

"Okay. As of 1958, THIS is America. Anyone coming in after this is an ILLEGAL ALIEN."

11/25/2007 8:25 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

anon 8:05 - "...this amnesty for illegal immigrants only came up after the Democrats discovered that they could gain lots of votes from the new citizens.

Where was all this need for amnesty when Bill Clinton was in office?"

You are such a fucking idiot.

If your assumption that "...this amnesty for illegal immigrants only came up after the Democrats discovered that they could gain lots of votes from the new citizens..." then your question about "Where was all this need for amnesty when Bill Clinton was in office?" becomes specious (a fancy word for stupid and without basis).

Do you have any brain cells at all? Or do you just have a few mp3 megs reserved for recording and replaying shit that you don't even understand?

11/25/2007 8:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think the world reserved the term "fucking idiot" for you. I don't think that it could possibly be bestowed upon anyone else.

Good effort though. If you can't beat 'em with logic, call them names.

11/25/2007 9:05 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

Anon 9:05 - Well. Based on such unassailable logic, I am forced to admit defeat. You must be right.

I am sure the world will flock to you and your view of the world.

How could I have been so wrong?

11/25/2007 9:16 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

I think we made a BIG mistake letting in the Irish, Italians and Germans.

If we didn't have them we wouldn't have Funk, a certain blogger and the Shoe-less Wonder.


The Welsh should run the world.

I would tell my countrymen to rise up! and urge them to take their place in the proud tradition of American WASP rulers and finally legitimize those brown (and yellow)people who are convenient to our purposes.


Anybody know where I can locate a Welsh-English online translation service? Most of my relatives are a bit rusty on the Gaelic...

11/25/2007 10:00 PM  
Anonymous You Have To Be Kidding Me said...

To address some sad comments by Anon:

"I guess the best we can do is to agree to disagree like the rest of the country"??

The majority of this country supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform and is not for throwing on a hood, kicking brown people out of homes and grocery stores and kids out of schools and hospitals which seem to be the method of choice for GOP.


"Give me a reasonable argument to support crossing the border illegally (ie. I was gonna die, or I was gonna be tortured) and I'll consider it, but because they wouldn't let us do it legally is not a reasonable argument."

Since you are referring to Mexican immigrants it should be noted that The vast majority (over 80%) of Mexican immigrants come to this country legally with a visa and not the millions crossing the border theory that you are so uneducated as to believe.

But since you are referring to those that do cross the border, I have to ask you if you know anything about the visa process? Have you experienced it? Watched it work? Do you know anything about the life of the average immigrant that decides to enter by crossing the border? I have. I do.

First off, Latin America countries by far have the hardest regulations than any other part of the world. The 6 Month to 1 year process that you have to take just to attempt to get a Tourist Visa is sickening, and anyone who actually knows anything about the immigration proces can tell you how long, expensive and difficult it is to get a Resident Visa.

Secondly, if you have dark skin, a thick accent, do not own property, do not earn a lot of money or do not wear expensive designer clothes to the appointment, chances are you won't get the visa, even if it is just to go to Disneyland. The same goes for if you mention any sign of friends or relatives living in the country and/or if you the family decides to all go on the same date.

Third, after taking into consideration monthly cost of living, even in mexico, once you add the cost for resident visas for your whole family, you will get a number that is more than most applicants make in a whole year.

Fourth, if denied your application, which as mentioned above most applicants, especially those of dark skin have happen to them at least their first or second time, your money is not returned to you, therefore, candidates must start back over at step one a process that takes years. After getting denied, 2, 3, 4 times, losing thousands of dollars, and waiting years for the same denial, the process seems pretty impossible and so does the outlook on feeding your kids leaving most people that decide to cross the border (again the vast minority of immigrants) no other options.

Lastly, People in Mexico don't for just any reason decide to leave their friends, family, home, work and country in order to cross the border in a very dangerous environment all to be dropped off in the middle of nowhere and walk miles with very little food and water. An environment in which most people usually get robbed, raped or assaulted and some people even are murdered or have their daughters, sister or wife kidnapped and sent into slavery rings.

I'm not Mexican, and I love the USA, but I can promise you that I am glad to have had the pleasure and honor to have lived there and experienced life there. It's pretty funny the stereotypes that people spend their whole life just believing instead of educatng themselves to find out whether it is a true or false thought or belief.

I can assure you that your view on the process is at best uneducated, ethnocentric, close minded, and pathetic.

I encourage you to take the time to educate yourself before you open your mouth on such a topic.

11/26/2007 2:42 AM  
Anonymous You Have To Be Kidding Me said...

I should also note that the states where Mexican immigrants come from are states whose only jobs are those of Foreign Manufacturers (Usually US maquiladoras) who hide behind favorable international trade laws and pay their employees next to nothing or the minimum wage in Mexico (4 usd per day 12 hr day). Also, those that come from rural parts of Mexico are usually from where US coporations (maquiladoras)actually own the land don't pay taxes to Mexico or US, don't allow either government to interfer, while they only provide basic utilities which usually rarely work.

11/26/2007 2:53 AM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

Oddly enough, you condemned me on another threat for pulling out "an old quotation" to support my position because you disagree with me.

And yet you do the same thing here to tar your opponents as racists and bigots.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Dan!

11/26/2007 5:23 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

No, Rhymes, if you'd pay attentionm you'd see we are using our quotations in exactly opposite manners. You are trying to use the quotation to end discussion, whereas I'm using mine to start it. I posted an old quotation full of nonsense, with the hope that people would realize how similar the anti-immigrant crowd today sounds to the anti-Semitic Senator of the 1890s. The only relevance to the quote is that people are making the same mistake now. The quotation is a starting point to rational discussion.

You, instead, dug up a quotation from a well-known feminist that suggests that women are morally incompetent, and you have been unable to defend that position.

11/26/2007 6:09 AM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

XO..Since we didn't descend from the Rockefellers, I guess our families both worked hard as Americans. What I disagree with is your contention that Americans today won't do the jobs illegal immigrants do. That's not true. It never was and is not today. I will not accept your theory when I have family and neighbors that now compete for the same jobs that illegal immigrants hold. Employers of illegal immigrants want cheap labor. They would rather hire them at a far lesster wage than legal citizens. They should be fined and thrown in jail. When that happens, I'll shut up with my illegal immigration concerns. I'll shut up about the family friend who worked in St. Joe on the slaughter house floor and sent his kids to college on his wages, until the slaughter house moved to western Kansas to hire illegal immigrants for half the wages he, as a legal citizen, was making. I'll shut up about the whole damn thing when greedy employers quit exploiting all of us.

11/26/2007 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Rhymes With Right said...

Once again, Dan, you show you are intellectually dishonest.

11/26/2007 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, RWR, I've been watching the comments on this thread and the thread on your "only rich kids should have sex" posting, and your the one who's intellectually dishonest. Dan posted a quote that he made fun of, and challenged people to think about. You relied on a quotation as a substitute for logic.

If you were intellectually honest, you would have a response to the questions I asked on the other thread. If women are morally competent, how are they the victims of a crime they participate in? How is a woman who chooses to pay somebody to abort her fetus a victim?

11/26/2007 5:09 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Thanks for stepping in, Anonymous. RWR (Did you really have to call him Mr. Right on the other thread?) is playing a dishonest game on the other thread, and, while I first thought he didn't understand, I now see that he simply won't admit that he thinks of pregnant women as lesser moral beings. And I'm glad that people realize that using a quotation as a point of departure is vastly different from using it as a supposed answer.

11/26/2007 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think RWR considers women that have an abortion to be lesser moral beings.

If RWR "morally" opposes abortion, that would make sense.

11/27/2007 7:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home