Unrestricted Immigration

[AmericanSpartan]

That's what they said about the Irish. In fact, now that I think about it, all of the early waves of European immigrants were coming to this country to escape nations with no tradition of government but tyranny.

See how they voted that claim has some facts to it.

[timosman]

Tube added.

[AmericanSpartan]

NICE!

[scrosnoe]

Which you have no chance of getting without a sovereign nation.

^^this (would give you more rep if i could )

[jmdrake]

Did "they"? Show me an example please.

Sure.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/25f.asp
With the vast numbers of German and Irish coming to America, hostility to them erupted. Part of the reason for the opposition was religious. All of the Irish and many of the Germans were Roman Catholic. Part of the opposition was political. Most immigrants living in cities became Democrats because the party focused on the needs of commoners. Part of the opposition occurred because Americans in low-paying jobs were threatened and sometimes replaced by groups willing to work for almost nothing in order to survive. Signs that read NINA — "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" — sprang up throughout the country.

Funny how history repeats itself. In the 1920s nativists were against the Irish because they felt they were taking American jobs, they were the wrong religion*, they were too willing to go on welfare, and they were going to be a permanent democratic voting block. Italian immigrants faced similar opposition, plus they were seen as criminal.

*Yes once upon a time people were as fearful of Catholics as they are now of Muslims. And that fear wasn't totally unfounded as there had been religious wars between Catholics and Protestants that lasted into the 1700s.

If you think the Irish had no tradition of liberty, you don't know much about them, that much is obvious. (Italians too, in case you wanted to lump them in there).

I didn't say Irish had no tradition of liberty. I said other people said that. And they did. Don't forget that Irish Catholic John F. Kennedy was considered a threat by many Protestants because some thought he would take his marching orders from the Pope.

See how they voted that claim has some facts to it.

LOL. Thank you for further proving my point. And thank you for prompting me to do a bit of research on it. Yes Iris largely leaned democrat at first. But, driven largely by disagreements on social issues (abortion) and an increase in personal prosperity, Irish have started leaning more republican. Democrats still have an edge, but nothing like it is with the black community. Irish favored Obama's re-election 51 to 48%. An edge, yes. But not an insurmountable one.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/is-t...62013-Nov2012/

The relationship is not broken

I profoundly disagree with their assessments. But they do have a point when they say that Irish America is not a monolithic political entity. Traditionally, Irish-Americans had aligned themselves with the Democratic Party. Yet over time, a substantial number have drifted into the Republican camp. Some have drifted because they oppose the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch on social issues like abortion; others have drifted because they have become successful financially and now embrace Republican tax policy.
The first-ever poll of Irish-Americans on this year’s presidential election, carried out by IrishCentral and Amarach Research, bears this out. In fact, the poll shows that Irish-Americans only favour Barack Obama’s re-election by 51 per cent -48 per cent. And the comments posted by IrishCentral readers about the poll are instructive. Those who support Mitt Romney cite their opposition to abortion and to Obama’s economic philosophy. Those who support President Obama cite the traditional Irish-American affiliation with the Democratic Party and Governor Romney’s bias toward better-off Americans.
These Irish-American voters – representative as they are of the crucial Catholic vote – may well decide the outcome of this year’s presidential election. More conservative on social issues and still more populist on economic issues, it is their votes that the candidates are now fighting over in Ohio in the campaign’s final hours.
It is my hope that those Irish-Americans whose preference isn’t set in stone or who remain undecided will keep in mind the experience of their forebears and re-elect President Barack Obama.

[Anti Federalist]

Ask the Cherokee or Penobscot or Apache people what unfettered immigration of a foreign culture will do to you.

[AmericanSpartan]

Sure.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/25f.asp
With the vast numbers of German and Irish coming to America, hostility to them erupted. Part of the reason for the opposition was religious. All of the Irish and many of the Germans were Roman Catholic. Part of the opposition was political. Most immigrants living in cities became Democrats because the party focused on the needs of commoners. Part of the opposition occurred because Americans in low-paying jobs were threatened and sometimes replaced by groups willing to work for almost nothing in order to survive. Signs that read NINA — "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" — sprang up throughout the country.

Funny how history repeats itself. In the 1920s nativists were against the Irish because they felt they were taking American jobs, they were the wrong religion*, they were too willing to go on welfare, and they were going to be a permanent democratic voting block. Italian immigrants faced similar opposition, plus they were seen as criminal.

*Yes once upon a time people were as fearful of Catholics as they are now of Muslims. And that fear wasn't totally unfounded as there had been religious wars between Catholics and Protestants that lasted into the 1700s.



I didn't say Irish had no tradition of liberty. I said other people said that. And they did. Don't forget that Irish Catholic John F. Kennedy was considered a threat by many Protestants because some thought he would take his marching orders from the Pope.



LOL. Thank you for further proving my point. And thank you for prompting me to do a bit of research on it. Yes Iris largely leaned democrat at first. But, driven largely by disagreements on social issues (abortion) and an increase in personal prosperity, Irish have started leaning more republican. Democrats still have an edge, but nothing like it is with the black community. Irish favored Obama's re-election 51 to 48%. An edge, yes. But not an insurmountable one.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/is-t...62013-Nov2012/

The relationship is not broken

I profoundly disagree with their assessments. But they do have a point when they say that Irish America is not a monolithic political entity. Traditionally, Irish-Americans had aligned themselves with the Democratic Party. Yet over time, a substantial number have drifted into the Republican camp. Some have drifted because they oppose the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch on social issues like abortion; others have drifted because they have become successful financially and now embrace Republican tax policy.
The first-ever poll of Irish-Americans on this year’s presidential election, carried out by IrishCentral and Amarach Research, bears this out. In fact, the poll shows that Irish-Americans only favour Barack Obama’s re-election by 51 per cent -48 per cent. And the comments posted by IrishCentral readers about the poll are instructive. Those who support Mitt Romney cite their opposition to abortion and to Obama’s economic philosophy. Those who support President Obama cite the traditional Irish-American affiliation with the Democratic Party and Governor Romney’s bias toward better-off Americans.
These Irish-American voters – representative as they are of the crucial Catholic vote – may well decide the outcome of this year’s presidential election. More conservative on social issues and still more populist on economic issues, it is their votes that the candidates are now fighting over in Ohio in the campaign’s final hours.
It is my hope that those Irish-Americans whose preference isn’t set in stone or who remain undecided will keep in mind the experience of their forebears and re-elect President Barack Obama.

After 150 years? Yeah, about time and time to use this long time table to assimilation as a great reason to rather reduce immigration.

[AmericanSpartan]

Ask the Cherokee or Penobscot or Apache people what unfettered immigration of a foreign culture will do to you.

If you can find one that is.

[AmericanSpartan]

Notice how the open border morons have not made a single case against this vid?

[timosman]

bump

[RestorationOfLiberty]

The wall is going up, after it got ten feet taller..

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Well, you ask for a mile and I'll give you two. This then leads to the question, is the libertarian position on immigration correct? I'd rather go phone bank for Hillary at this point then listen to Lew, so please update with his thesis.

Some libertarians agree with the leftist fascists on having unlimited immigrants. This is not right unless you want to speak Arabic and submit to Sharia.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Some libertarians agree with the leftist fascists on having unlimited immigrants. This is not right unless you want to speak Arabic and submit to Sharia.

O.M.G., I am like so totally scared of that. We should really give the government control over property rights.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

O.M.G., I am like so totally scared of that. We should really give the government control over property rights.

Oh do not worry, the government will have total power when Marxists have imported enough welfare voters that they win all future elections by default, you know like NY or CA?

[timosman]

O.M.G., I am like so totally scared of that. We should really give the government control over property rights.

Translation: I am 90 years old and I do not give a $#@!.

[helmuth_hubener]

[BSWPaulsen]

Ask the Cherokee or Penobscot or Apache people what unfettered immigration of a foreign culture will do to you.

I'd rep this if I could.

The point cannot be driven home enough. It is impossible to have liberty when invaded or subverted by a culture anathema to it.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

And they have the right to out vote you open border supports of your wealth and property rights...

[P3ter_Griffin]

[MallsRGood]

lol

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Autism speaks.

[timosman]

bump

[Swordsmyth]

A question for all the Palestinian loving Israel haters here: How did uncontrolled illegal immigration work out over there?

[RestorationOfLiberty]

A question for all the Palestinian loving Israel haters here: How did uncontrolled illegal immigration work out over there?

Well it proves the point its less close to home, therefore fewer people care by default.

[Ender]

A question for all the Palestinian loving Israel haters here: How did uncontrolled illegal immigration work out over there?

It wasn't immigration, it was a British conquest.

[Swordsmyth]

It wasn't immigration, it was a British conquest.

The British didn't let in the Jews, they tried to keep them out, the Ottomans had kept them out but some of the British secretly helped them to come in.
Hitler did more to send the Jews to Palestine than the British did.
Israel isn't a British state it is a Jewish state and most of them didn't come from Britain.

[Ender]

The British didn't let in the Jews, they tried to keep them out, the Ottomans had kept them out but some of the British secretly helped them to come in.
Hitler did more to send the Jews to Palestine than the British did.
Israel isn't a British state it is a Jewish state and most of them didn't come from Britain.

The Brits captured Jerusalem 15 DECEMBER 1917- it had nothing to do with Hitler.

[Swordsmyth]

The Brits captured Jerusalem 15 DECEMBER 1917- it had nothing to do with Hitler.

Did the Jews move in on 15 DECEMBER 1917?
It is the Zionist Jews that are a problem for the Palestinians the British aren't even there anymore, they may have caused some problems but nothing like what the state of Israel has.

(The Palestinians aren't angels either but it is the Jews that were immigrants that took over so they are the ones under discussion.)

[Ender]

Did the Jews move in on 15 DECEMBER 1917?
It is the Zionist Jews that are a problem for the Palestinians the British aren't even there anymore, they may have caused some problems but nothing like what the state of Israel has.

(The Palestinians aren't angels either but it is the Jews that were immigrants that took over so they are the ones under discussion.)

Maybe read the Balfour Declaration?

[r3volution 3.0]

Ask the Cherokee or Penobscot or Apache people what unfettered immigration of a foreign culture will do to you.

Ask the Poles c. 1939 what unfettered German immigration will do to you...

...except that's a military invasion, not immigration, and to confuse the two is to beat the English language to within an inch of its life.

With the vast numbers of German and Irish coming to America, hostility to them erupted. Part of the reason for the opposition was religious. All of the Irish and many of the Germans were Roman Catholic. Part of the opposition was political. Most immigrants living in cities became Democrats because the party focused on the needs of commoners. Part of the opposition occurred because Americans in low-paying jobs were threatened and sometimes replaced by groups willing to work for almost nothing in order to survive. Signs that read NINA — "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" — sprang up throughout the country.

Funny how history repeats itself. In the 1920s nativists were against the Irish because they felt they were taking American jobs, they were the wrong religion*, they were too willing to go on welfare, and they were going to be a permanent democratic voting block. Italian immigrants faced similar opposition, plus they were seen as criminal.

An important difference to appreciate is that, prior to 1896, the Democrat Party was the small government party: the party of Jefferson and Grover Cleveland. Whereas, the Republican Party was the big government party: the party of Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Lincoln. Why did immigrants vote for liberty at that time? It wasn't because they really understood it (no important fraction of the population ever does), it was because the party of liberty, the Jeffersonian Democrat Party, supported them in resisting the violently anti-immigrant, prohibitionist, racist, anti-Catholic GOP. Things haven't changed so much, in terms of voting behavior, except that the Jeffersonian Democrats are long dead and now both parties are radically statist. The old cultural divide remains, but without meaning from a libertarian perspective.