New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 13, 2008 8:52 AM

See this is the Johnny I know and love...you tell em!! BRAVO.

Posted by: NewHavenOne | March 13, 2008 9:06 AM

Congratulations to Dustin Gold, the watchdog anti immigrant group, he made top 20 Nativists / Anti-immigrant list of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Guess this recognition will puff up his self-importance as a hater of immigrants.

From the Southern Poverty Law Center website:
"These hardliners, ranging in age from 25 to 81, have advocated everything from forcibly sterilizing Mexican women to mining the U.S.-Mexican border. In the past three years, there have been some 300 anti-immigration groups founded; about half of that number are listed by the SPLC as "nativist extremist" groups. Some of these organizations are also listed as hate groups."

Posted by: OH WELL | March 13, 2008 10:54 AM

Am not in any hate group am a citizen that pays taxes and love people. I am in support of legal immigration,and everyone that comes here should be able to speak english,(take a class).

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | March 13, 2008 11:08 AM

King john needs to take care of the of the main problems of new haven first IE: crime, failing schools, high taxes and police corruption in new haven!!!I am sick and tired of the bias statement
that illegal immigrants do the jobs that american
people do not want to do,This is B.S. We the american people know what is fair wages that the jobs are to pay us for the work that is to be done.Cedarhillresident on one of your post you talk about your family Irish and Italian roots and how they work jobs here in this country, But they also help form unions in this country to be paid fair wages, In fact my grandfather worked
in the new york city transport wokers union with
Mike Quill a Irish man who got them fair wages and benefits.Even the late great Cesar Chavez fought constantly against illegal immigration beacuse it made it hard to get fair wages, Even now illegal immigrants are being used to cross picket
lines in place of workers who are figthing for fair wages.I know people who are told at work that if you do not like the pay we can hire illegal immigrants to take your place, Bottom line is that illegal immigrants can be control
better than the american workers who know there rights.Also what about the people who are on the list to come in to this country legal? My in laws
who are from the caribbean and have been waiting
for as much as seven years to become legal citizens of this country and are still here on a work visa.It also seems to me that there is some bias when it comes to other illegal immigrants ie:
Haitians,Africans and Caribbean Islands.This is why i agree with the mayor of danbury there are laws in place that if you do not follow than you are breaking the law and the law should be enforce.I also agree with barack obama when he said in the debate that illegal immigrants should
be allowed to apply for citizenship, but must get in the back of the line.So King John you need to take a look at the waterboarding that you are doing to the people of new havenIE: crime, failing
schools, high taxes.

Posted by: kidding, right? | March 13, 2008 1:18 PM

Bravo to Mr. Boughton.
It is totally absurd to relate a raid on people who are breaking the law, to waterboarding.

If I raid an illegal whorehouse is that like waterboarding too? ... must be, in DeStafano's eyes.

Posted by: richardboyce | March 13, 2008 1:28 PM

Waterboarding is like waterboarding. Employment site raids are like law enforcement. All here illegally, if honest, would tell you the main reason for coming was they felt there would be amnesties into infinity. School teachers, college professors, social workers and the other usual suspects would be out to present the kleenex stories and hold up immigrant exception stories as rule. What it all comes down to is if you use facts and do the right thing for the country they have to go. If you remove emotion from the argument there is nothing to counter facts and logic. Vistit other countries and we would bring in all of Darfur, China, Iraq etc. We have to have a screening process and the standards must be high. Fewer than half of those here illegally would be admitted.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 13, 2008 2:37 PM

The waterboarding allusion is shameful hyperbole -- very low, indeed.

DeStefano claims to stand for righteousness, but he, as Mayor, is as responsible -- under oath --for upholding a law, as any other elected official -- including Eliot Spitzer, for example.

Why is DeStefano still in office when he fights the federal government over enforcement of a law passed by the People? By and for those who are legally present in this country!

Homeland Security should be fighting to retrieve the database of illegal immigrants held by the city of New Haven so that it can act upon the information therein.

Posted by: Bobby | March 13, 2008 3:48 PM

The good folks of New Haven and their Mayor, Mista John DeStefano will not be deterred from havin their slave laba. We the good people of New Haven may have to give up our slaves and wash the dishes and mow ou lawns by our wee little selves but today we make this vow. No matta how bad things get, we will rise again, and we swey to neva be hungray again.

Idiot East Coast liberals who will not obey existing immigration law of the United States Immigration Law Code. Title 8. Section 1325

Posted by: Bobby | March 13, 2008 3:51 PM

Why am I not surprised that an East Coast publication has to approve the message sent by bloggers, rather than allowing speech to simply be heard and give citizens a chance to judge things for themselves. What an elitist, but typical attitude. We should be in a dictatorship in no time thanks to all the censors.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | March 13, 2008 4:00 PM

Newhavenone: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLS) is about as extreme left as you can get and is hardly the harbinger of what's hate or accurate - they list the Jewish Defense League and a sitting U.S. Congressman as hate mongers. Second, Dustin Gold nor does his group appear anywhere on the SPLC site or newsletters that I can find and he is most certainly not on the top 21 as you referenced above. Finally, those that foster words like "hate" to describe the opinions of others who feel strongly about a subject such as this do nothing to promote a solution. One would not expect you would learn that from our mayor, who routinely and harshly demonizes those with whom he disagrees characterizing them in the most extreme terms. While not pleasant, sitting in a jail is hardly waterboarding, mayor. Perhaps losing your home to sewer or tax bills might be a closer analogy and the impact of it certainly lasts longer. Just to be clear, I am not nor have I ever been associated with Dustin Gold or his group.

Posted by: Ali | March 13, 2008 4:05 PM

"Travel is fatal to prejudice." That suggested: If more Americans traveled to some of the home countries of immigrants well-represented in New Haven and Danbury -- Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil -- would they see the big picture differently?"

I've lived and worked in the Middle East for several years, and have seen the poverty there, and the millions who would like to leave just that one area. I've also seen the corruption that drives many of them to want to leave. So why is it that supporters of illegal aliens don't recognize the innate unfairness and injustice in letting illegal aliens not only jump the line, but be rewarded for it with amnesty? That illegal immigration is part and parcel of corruption, on the part of the illegal aliens, their employers, and the government that looks the other way under pressure from special interests.

Posted by: True New Havener | March 13, 2008 6:00 PM

Welcome to all of our out-of-town anti-immigrant bigot friends. We haven't heard from you in some time. And boy did we miss you.

Gary and 3/5ths are locals who comment regularly and clearly actually live here so while I don't agree with them, they are a part of our community.

The rest of you please go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.

Boughton is a disgrace. In these kinds of forums he tries to appear like a thoughtful civil servant though apparently he had nothing more than a couple of anecdotes on which he is basing city policy. But when trying to drum up support among the ignorant, he is more than willing to use provocative rhetoric and actions. He revels in being a poster child for anti-immigrants. Disgraceful.

And to those of you who blather on about "we only oppose 'illegal' immigrants". Really? How many of you would support fixing the immigration laws to increase the number of immigrants who can migrate legally to realistic numbers and end the horrendous wait times associated with applications for citizenship for legal immigrants?

If you really support legal immigrants please do enlighten us all with how you have worked hard to address these two big problems that they currently face in trying to come to the US legally. Or like the anti-immigrant organizations at the national level paying Gold's legal bills do you actually support dramatically decreasing the number of immigrants of color who come to America legally?

Posted by: NoMoreBlatherDotCom | March 13, 2008 6:41 PM

My previous comment pointing to the NHI's *own reporting* was deleted, so I guess I'll leave it to the reader to search for 'site:newhavenindependent.org "mexican government"'.

And, regarding Jacoby, I asked her a question a couple years ago that showed that she hadn't thought through what she promotes. Maybe this site could consider asking questions like that should she swing by again.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 13, 2008 6:49 PM

Click on my name above this song says it all!!! and get use to it!!!!!!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 13, 2008 6:49 PM

hmmm did not work click here
http://www.jongrauer.net/Downloads/Neil/Coming To America.mp3

Posted by: Jasper | March 13, 2008 10:23 PM

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a known hate group and its founder, Morris Dees, is a known racist.

Posted by: elio | March 13, 2008 10:45 PM

Para todas estas personas que nos apoyan muchas gacias y para los idiotas que no apoyan a los imigrantes solamente quisiera que ellos fueran a vivir una semana como estos pobres imigrantes viven en sus paises natales y nos dieran la razon por la cual nosotros immigramos al norte.. is very nice to live well right so thas what we try..in this country and thank to major Jhon Dstafano

Posted by: Carson | March 13, 2008 11:35 PM

This has nothing to do about open borders.

If we went into their countries and did to them what they have done to us we wouldn't have been able to get away with it for long.

This is all the same old story about lying, cheating and stealing when it serves your purposes better. The real problem is that we still have the Revolutionaries in the government and the criminals in business still here and still out on our streets.

It will be business as usual until they are brought to justice.

Posted by: david streever | March 13, 2008 11:38 PM

oh man
Destefano didn't say it's "like" waterboarding at all, that's a misleading title, and as usual, no one bothered to read or listen to what he said.

He drew a comparison between Federal Agents joking about "playing" with people's lives--literally--and compared that to the nonsense that led to waterboarding.

He said:
"We play with people's lives? That's what we're about as a nation? It's a short step -- why don't we just take 'em and waterboard 'em."

If you're going to "play with lives" you might as well torture--I don't think that's such a crazy statement. Yes, bringing up waterboarding was a little extreme, but he is refering to federal agents raiding & detaining immigrants with no proof of their status as citizens or not, who also joke & laugh about playing with people's lives. This is the city he's been hired to serve, and I'm sure he's upset that the federal government is sending in guys who think that lives are toys.

Personally, I don't want police--or feds--playing god in my life, and I was born & raised here... I don't think that's an insane statement, and the Independent loses points for giving this article such a silly title! (and inviting trolls with the link to the comments...) The rest of you lose points for being incapable of clear thinking & essential reading comprehension skills.

Oh Well was the best though:
"Am not in any hate group am a citizen that pays taxes and love people. I am in support of legal immigration,and everyone that comes here should be able to speak english,(take a class)."

Oh yea buddy, you're english is top-notch! You really should serve as the judge & jury on who is allowed here on the basis of their ability to form coherent sentences.

I'm sure someone is going to hunt for a typo by me: let's just remember that I'm not trying to determine who is eligible for citizenship based on their language skills.

Posted by: Bobby | March 14, 2008 1:40 AM

TRUE NEW HAVENER says, Welcome to all of our out-of--town anti-immigrant bigot friends. Ooohh, anti-immigrant bigot friends. His argyle sweater and socks are getting all wrinkled at the thought of having slave labor taken away. Ooohhhh. Come on, pay that guy mowing your lawn a fair wage and stop being so cheap.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 14, 2008 6:35 AM

Ali wrote: So why is it that supporters of illegal aliens don't recognize the innate unfairness and injustice in letting illegal aliens not only jump the line, but be rewarded for it with amnesty? That illegal immigration is part and parcel of corruption, on the part of the illegal aliens, their employers, and the government that looks the other way under pressure from special interests.

BRAVO

Posted by: VivaLaMigra | March 14, 2008 10:08 AM

The current immigration system is one "..where you're guaranteed [sic] to fail? [in your efforts to be admitted]" Excuse me, but over 1,000,000 people - a number that is far too high to be sustainable environmentally! - SUCCEED in getting green cards annually! Over 140,000 of them come from - you guessed it! - Mexico! Yup, with just 2% of the worlds's population, they get 14% of the green card alotment. Gee, that's really "racist" of us, isn't it? As for enforcing the immigration laws being akin to "waterboarding" - I guess New Haven's mayor will be instructing his cops not to hand out any more TRAFFIC TICKETS 'cuz getting bagged for a moving violation violates people's human rights to pick'n'choose which laws they will respect and obey! Besides, a $100 fine ruins your whole day and that's just so...cruel! How could Hizzoner be a party to such "torture?" The shame of it!

Posted by: June | March 14, 2008 10:10 AM

How about ICE sending engraved announcements the next time they plan a raid? Just obeying the law is upsetting to a lot of people, so let's see if this plan would do the trick with the pro-illegals.

Posted by: Fonseca | March 14, 2008 10:20 AM

Response to Carlson's "if." This hypothetical is not accurate at all. "We" have "been in their countries" exploiting their labor, environment, and sometimes unfortunate geographic location for a long time. We have created and manipulated governments that do not serve their people, but rather are forced into disastrous neo-liberal economic policies as a means to receive meager USAID handouts and suicidal loans that they will never be able to pay off.

Trade agreements and over exploitation for 100's of years have created a forced economic migration. When you cannot provide yourself and family with the necessities of life you go el norte.

It is unfortunate that some folks or organizations feel that it is productive to pit black and brown people against each other. We must reconsider a system where two of histories most marginalized groups are fighting for what amounts to table scraps of our formal and informal economy.

"We can't trade humanity for patriotism."

Posted by: Gary Doyens | March 14, 2008 10:37 AM

Jsper: Your comments about the Southern Poverty Law Center are as bad as NewHavenOne but clearly from polar opposites on the political spectrum. The SPLC has been known to do good and in doing good, to be fair and seek justice. However, it is also well known for going overboard, for branding and blurring the lines between strong opinions and what most people would consider true "hate" groups like those who are virulently rascist like white supremacists and anti-semites. But it is hardly a hate group.

In this land of free speech, it is sad that opinions held strongly by people are so easily labeled as rascist, hateful and intolerant by special interest groups and vice versa. It afflicts politics big time, and you see the same kind of questionable use of terms by well known groups on both sides of the public policy spectrum.

Posted by: Edward_H | March 14, 2008 11:17 AM

He also mentioned transcripts of emails from ICE officers obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that referred to the upcoming raid as "going out to play."

At least the ICE officers seem to enjoy their work. How would they behave if they hated their jobs?

Posted by: fac Chek | March 14, 2008 11:31 AM

"New Haven Mayor John DeStefano was describing a June 6 raid by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officials of undocumented workers 36 hours after the city's Board of Aldermen approved an immigration-friendly municipal ID plan. He made the suggestion at a debate"

Does any one seriously believe that, according to DeStefano,"36 hours after the BOA approved the Municipal ID Program" Ice planned, obtained warrants, notified other federal officials and carried out a raid in rapid succession. In addition, six hours BEFORE the raid, New Haven Police were notified. All this in 36 hours....?
extraordinary to say the least.

Question: How come the New Haven police, WITH STATE POLICE assistance, take three years to compile a case for a drug raid??

Knock it off DeStefano, it doesn't play well.

Posted by: ROBN | March 14, 2008 1:08 PM

This country didn't have immigration quotas for its first 150 years, so why shut the door on the american dream?

Posted by: True New Havener | March 14, 2008 1:29 PM

Gary,

I thought your balanced reaction to SPLC was well thought out. I do want to note a couple of things though after reading through their website which creates some disagreement with your otherwise thoughtful points.

First -- they do not say that the self-important Dustin Gold heads a hate group -- they call him a nativist. It seems like they are on the money in that regard. They seem to make a clear distinction between those who are hate groups and those who want to restrict immigration without clearly making their hate self-evident. I would go further than them but then I would not be basing that on research just on disgust.

Second -- the groups SPLC says are hate groups seem to pretty clearly be hate groups (Klan, skin heads, etc.). Most recently they called the DC based anti-immigrant group FAIR a hate group and acknowledged that they did so only after a lot of consideration. Apparently this was because of years of FAIR playing footsie with well known haters like the Council of Conservative Citizens (the old white citizens council) and then going international and getting into bed with a white nationalist European political party. They also seem to have hired several white nationalists.

Now Gold (according to newspaper reports) is getting his legal services for free from FAIR so he is starting down a path but SPLC does not appear to believe he has yet crossed the River of Hate.

So to your point they seem to do good work. In mild disagreement, I could not however find some place where they have gone overboard when I read through their descriptions of those who they have outed as haters.

Posted by: facChek | March 14, 2008 2:24 PM

Robn:
Your statement above is not factual. Please read the following:

There have been a number of Immigration Acts in the United States.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first (and only) explicitly race-based immigration act.
The [Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.
The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 established national quotas on immigration based on the number of foreign-born residents of each nationality who were living in the United States as of the 1910 census.
The Immigration Act of 1924 aimed at freezing the current ethnic distribution in response to rising immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as Asia.
The National Origins Formula was established with the Immigration act of 1924. Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations. Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received. Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant's residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the U.S. Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy and students to obtain visas.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (or McCarran-Walter Act) somewhat liberalized immigration from Asia, but increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected of Communist sympathies.
Operation Wetback was a 1954 project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about 1.2 million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, with a focus on Mexican nationals. In addition to the deportations, the term wetbacks became a slur referring to Mexicans in general.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 discontinued quotas based on national origin, while preference given to those who have U.S. relatives. For the first time Mexican immigration was restricted.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who had been in the United States before 1982 but made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRaIRA) made drastic changes to asylum law, immigration detention, criminal-based immigration, and many forms of immigration relief.
The Real ID Act of 2005 created more restrictions on political asylum, severely curtailed habeas corpus relief for immigrants, increased immigration enforcement mechanisms, altered judicial review, and imposed federal restrictions on the issuance of state driver's licenses to immigrants and others.

Posted by: robn | March 14, 2008 4:18 PM

(Other than the insideously racist Chinese exclusion act of 1882) this country didn't have immigration quotas for its first (133) years, so why shut the door on the american dream?

(you see how honest I am facchek...i didn't even start counting until 1788 when the Constitution was ratified...if I was spinning you I would have started counting in 1776)

Posted by: facChek | March 14, 2008 4:38 PM

Robn:

Not true, Please read the following.

Naturalization Act of 1790

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to aliens who were "free white persons" and thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free African-Americans, and later Asian Americans.

The 1790 Act also limited naturalization to persons of "good moral character"; the law required a set period of residence in the United States prior to naturalization, specifically two years in the country and one year in the state of residence when applying for citizenship. When those requirements were met, an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with "any common law court of record" having jurisdiction over his residence asking to be naturalized. Once convinced of the applicant's good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The clerk of court was to make a record of these proceedings, and "thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States."

The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization, "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".

Despite its racial restriction to "free whites," the Act was radical for the ease with which European immigrants could gain U.S. citizenship for themselves. Moreover, the U.S. extended full citizenship to Catholics 50 years before Great Britain and to Jewish immigrants before the French Revolution had done so. Nonetheless, racial barriers were put in place for certain immigrants, which were not removed until 1870 (for Africans) and until 1952 (for East and South Asians).

The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Posted by: robn | March 14, 2008 6:13 PM

FC,

I thought that immigration and naturalizationare two different things. Did the Naturalization Act of 1790 establish an immigration quota?

Posted by: DingDong | March 14, 2008 6:49 PM

Facchek, That bill, in your description of it, puts no limit whatsoever on the number of non-citizens allowed to enter, or to work, in the country.

Posted by: IceRocks | March 15, 2008 3:24 AM

Better be careful or you'll end up to be a third world sinkhole like Crowdifornia/Mexifornia. In May, they celebrate Sinkhole de Mayo, er, uh, Cinco de Mayo, and by then we'll add another billion or so to our 16 billion dollar budget deficit (of which 10+ billion is on services to illegal aliens).

Confusing law enforcement with waterboarding, a form of "torture", is beyond stupid and ignorant.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 15, 2008 10:19 AM

I stand by our mayor on our ID program!! And the fact that the ICE raids were WAY wrong! First, the ID is not a free pass. It is safety for all. People totally misunderstand what it is. And the mayor is only standing by what the MAJORITY of his city wants. Which is to protect our friends and community members NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE!!!

True New Havener love the comment!!
If you do not pay taxes in this city and live here then you have no say so in how we conduct our immigration issues!

As TNH said "Gary" and "my little fraction" do live here and by right have the right to educate us on the other point of views within the city. We respect them for that and I do read there posts because they are part of finding a common ground on this issue between New Haveners on both sides of the issue.
But as for the "hate squad" to come out of the wood work to voice there thoughts is a joke. My guess is most don't even read there bigoted thoughts anyway.

Posted by: Edward_H | March 15, 2008 12:21 PM

Cedarhillresident
If you do not pay taxes in this city and live here then you have no say so in how we conduct our immigration issues!

You know I love reading your comments but I would like to know if you hold this position when it comes to New Haveners and others who travel to Danbury to protest the way they handle their immigration issues?

http://immigrationnewsbriefs.blogspot.com/

Without people willing to travel to areas where they do not reside this country would have never had the massive civil rights marches of the sixties. If you replace the word "immigration" with "Blacks" in your statement you will see the same sentiment used by Southerners to justify attacking peaceful protesters with dogs and water hoses. Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I certainly don't think you will be releasing any German Shepards on any out of town anti-illegal immigration protesters anytime soon.

Posted by: Fonseca | March 15, 2008 10:15 PM

ICEROCKS

You are an angry person and your obnoxious sarcastic comments seem to be compensating for something. Cuídate Cabron

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 16, 2008 9:30 AM

Edward

Point well taken!
And I would be one of those people traveling to protect those in Danbury in protest of there views.

And when you replace the word and look at the situation with eyes of civil rights history it just makes me feel even more stronger about fighting for the rights of "these people". It is a matter bigger than law... it is a matter of humanity.

Luv ya to ED :)

Posted by: fac Chek | March 16, 2008 3:25 PM

Robn
&
DingDong:

This is the last of a series of History lessons.
I have enjoyed talking to you both.

BYE

In the United States, the Emergency Quota Act (ch. 8, 42 Stat. 5, also known as the Johnson Quota Act) of May 19, 1921 was an immigration quota that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 3% of the number of persons from that country living in the United States in 1910, according to United States Census figures. This totaled about 357,802 immigrants. Of that number just over half was allocated for northern and western Europeans, and the remainder for eastern and southern Europeans, a 75% reduction from prior years. Professionals were allowed in despite their origins. The act was passed without a record vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and by a vote of 78-1 in the U.S. Senate during a time of swelling isolationism following World War I. Historian John Higham wrote in his classic work on American nativism, Strangers in the Land (1963), that although intended as temporary legislation the act "proved in the long run the most important turning-point in American immigration policy" because it imposed numerical limits on European immigration for the first time and established a nationality quota system (Higham, p. 311).

The Emergency Quota Act had been proposed several times before, but never made it through until 1921. The main reason for passing the Act was that the flood of immigrants in recent years had negative wage effects on native-born Americans. This led to increasing support for immigration restrictions. Another factor was the decreasing political power of immigration groups.

Posted by: Fac chek | March 16, 2008 9:24 PM

Facchek,

The above conversation was not about whether or not the USA has ever regulated immigration, but whether they put quotas on it before the 1920's.

Posted by: fonseca | March 16, 2008 10:11 PM

Breaking the law? There was a time when black folks "broke the law" by sitting, eating, or walking in the "wrong" place. Law does not always reason with reason.

CeadarHill voy contigo pa adelante.

Posted by: robn | March 17, 2008 8:55 AM

facchek,

Thank you for finally confirming my assertion that "this country didn't have immigration quotas for its first (133) years". My original point being that its pretty selfish for people to shut the door on the american dream.

BTW...The next time you fill up the NHI's servers with large passages that you cut and paste from Wikipedia, please bother to read them first. If you're going to bludgeon others with information, you should at least understand it.

Posted by: facChek | March 17, 2008 11:35 AM

Your most recent post contradicts your post from March 14, 2008 as below:

Posted by: robn | March 14, 2008 4:18 PM

"(Other than the insidiously racist Chinese exclusion act of 1882")

Posted by: robn | March 17, 2008 1:31 PM

Facchec

This is a single page thread, my full quote is available for all to see, and I'm not contradicting myself.

I can't tell if you're a racist becuase, apart from condemnation of the mayor and unreconciled criticism of my calendrical equations, you haven't really expressed an opinion. You have, however, exposed yourself as a bully who uses plagarism as a weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation

You're a troll and I'm through feeding you. Goodbye.