From: "Rich Gauszka" 

It was the Immigration Act of 1965 that shifted the sources of immigration
with it's family reunification priority.

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/23.html

In October of 1965, amendments to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) repealed the national origins quota system. Under the old system, a
foreign country was allowed 2 percent of its total population to immigrate
to the United States. In lieu of these considerations of nationality and
ethnicity, the 1965 amendments established a system based on reunification
of families and needed skills. The amendments represent one of the most
important revisions of immigration policy in the United States since the
First Quota Act of 1921.
The 1965 Act made the annual maximum of Eastern Hemisphere immigrants
170,000, and no more than 20,000 per country. Individual visas were granted
with priority given to family reunification, attracting needed skills to
the United States, and refugees. Since 1965, sources of immigration to the
United States has shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia.



"Gary Britt"  wrote in
message news:46516609{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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.  Further, after that last great wave of immigration
> (great by past standards but a mere ripple compared to the current tsunami
> of illegal immigration) the country basically took a 60 to 100 year break
> in allowing waves of immigrants in order to properly assimilate your
> ancestors.
>
> 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.
> 2.  The differences in numbers of past waves of LEGAL immigration to
> current tsunami of ILLEGAL immigration are so different by a couple or
> more orders of magnitude to make any such comparisons completely
> unreasonable and inapplicable.
> 3.  We should have started a 60 to 100 year break to absorb the illegals
> and their families in the country oh about 10 to 20 years ago in order to
> be comparable to taking breaks after past LEGAL immigration waves.
>
> You can be against continued and unabated ILLEGAL immigration without
> forgetting in any way about our own ancestors who immigrated here LEGALLY
> followed by a sustained drop in immigration to allow absorption.  BIG
> DIFFERENCES.  NO COMPARISON.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> Geo. wrote:
>> "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote
>> in message news:4650af71$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>>> This is like listening to blacks bitch about Mexicans. You
have such a
>>>> nice native American sounding name bob, perhaps you could
tell us what
>>>> tribe you come from?
>>>>
>>> Bob new-Comer?
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> Well yeah, it's like my wife is Polish and Amish and  I'm Italian and
>> German so I should bitch about people coming to America because they want
>> a better life? People like that are the heart and sole of this country
>> and we better never forget it.
>>
>> Geo.

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