From: Ad 

Gary Britt wrote:
>
>
> Ad wrote:
>> Gary Britt wrote:
>>> Prior immigrants came here pursuant to far more strict rules, had to
>>> come in via certain specific ports of entry and were subject in terms
>>> of their numbers to very specific limits on the number of people on a
>>> per country of origin basis.
>>
>> In your dreams. Do you think people in the 1850'es didn't simply
>> wander in from Mexico or Canada?
>
> Your points, as usual are complete bollacks.  A relative few certainly.
> Not 10% to 20% of the entire Mexican population.  You have no clue about
> the USA.
>

Crap. Take the Irish:

http://library.thinkquest.org/20619/Irish.html

"The British Passenger Acts attempted to deflect the immigration from
the British Isles to Canada instead of the U.S., making the fare a cheap 15
shilling compared to the 4 or 5 pound fare to New York. Many Irish soon
found it convenient to take the affordable trip to Canada, where they could
buy cheap fares to the U.S., or cheaper yet, they could walk across the
border. By 1840, the Irish constituted nearly half of all entering
immigrants, and New England found it self heavily foreign born. By 1950,
the Irish consisted of one fifth of all foreign born in the originally
homogenous region."

"Altogether, almost 3.5 million Irishmen entered the U.S. between 1820
and 1880."


What do you think the population of Ireland was in those times?

>
>
>> Heck American illegal immigrants wandered into Mexico in such numbers
>> that they ended up nicking the northern Mexican provinces right from
>> the Western edge of Louisiana to the Pacific.
>
>
> That's immigration going the other way around.  It was free territory
> back then not well settled, and we took it, we paid for it in cash after
> kicking some bucks.  We own it.  Its ours.
>

Straight forward illegal immigration followed by land theft & ethnic
cleansing. & You're worried about the mexicans?


>>
>>> Comparisons of past immigration periods to today's problem are
>>> completely inapplicable (comparing apples and oranges) because:
>>>
>>> 1.  Can't compare LEGAL immigration to ILLEGAL immigration.
>>
>> How much immigration was LEGAL? A hell of a lot of it was simply
>> undocumented vs legal. People simply wandered in from all sorts of
>> places inc China, Japan, Latin America, Eastern Europe etc but the
>> place was big & empty & had huge borders & coastline
so who gave a damn.
>
>
> You are absolutely clueless.  Almost all of the prior waves of
> immigration when the italians, polish, irish, etc. immigrated were
> entirely legal, based on stict limits and they came in through
> designated ports of entry.
>

Bollox. Utter crap. Shitloads of Irish came via Canada as the fares were
much cheaper to canada.


>
>>
>> The population of the US is orders of magnitude greater so as a % of
>> the population that numbers aren't much different.
>
> Completely clueless again.  As a percentage of the population the
> current wave of illegal immigration is still orders of magnitude
> larger.


No it's not. I have some figures (from your own orgs) but given you're the
one making the statements, show me the numbers.

> Why do you give a shit about USA immigration anyway.  Get off
> your ass and start sending boats to Mexico to pick-up 1000's of Mexicans
> and bring them to your country illegally same for Sub-Saharan Africa.

Why bother when they can walk north? Saves on carbon emissions.

> When you reach 100's per month of third world country, illiterate,
> uneducated, non-english speaking immigrants and maintain it for about 20
> years or so, then come back and talk to me about immigration.  Until
> then just STFU.
>
>

Well then, then is now. We have Poles, Roma, Romanians etc.etc.etc.



>>
>> Why? You never have in the past
>
> Yes we did, but since you are so obtuse you don't know that.
>

nah you're just too ignorant & bigoted.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5