RE: Birthright citizenship.

RE: Birthright citizenship. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Elisabella -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 5:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The end result was similiar but the process and the immigrants status prior to processing was very different. The simple fact is we functionally imprisoned immigrants that entered by steamship and held them until we had decided to let them become legal immigrants. It was quite simply a process that made people who did not have permission to enter the country, despite already being here, into legal immigrants. This is simple and basic logic, if the immigrants only became legal entrants to this nation after processing at Ellis Island and equivalent then what was their status during and prior to processing? That is incorrect for all immigrants entering prior to 1924. It was only in 1924 that a law was passed to require entry visas. Everyone who entered before this law was passed did so legally. "Established the “consular control system” of immigration by mandating that no alien may be permitted entrance to the United States without an unexpired immigration visa issued by an American consular officer abroad. Thus, the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service shared control of immigration." http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Immigration_Act_of_1924

joether -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 12:26:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Joether, "cos." is short for "companies." So why not just say 'companies' in the first place? Your against illegal immigrants who don't know American-English (as opposed to the Queen's English), and yet, you use a word that isn't even an abbrivation for 'companies'. Maybe it is, but for the most part, its not widely accepted. Which is why 'Ebonics' was not accepted as a language about a decade ago. I'm not expecting you to be awesome with grammer/spelling, but at least, write regular words. As a poor (slow) typist and infrequent proofreader, I rarely correct the spelling, punctuation, or grammar of others. But this is just too funny to ignore. Anyone for a short round of Whack-a-Mole? I count nine errors in the Joether paragraph wherein he rants about the impropriety of a perfectly correct abbreviation. How many can you find? (BTW, I accepted American-English but took exception to his last comma). Since most of your posts are neither on topic or in the realm of reality, I'm doing pretty good with my post. Take your post above. What does that have to do with the topic, or what popeye1250 and myself are discussing? Absolutely NOTHING. It has no value, no thought, and certainly doesnt move the topic in a productive manner. In summary, your whole post is nothing but a slam against another person.

Knightwalker -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 5:34:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Maybe you don't understand how legal migration works. You go to the country's embassy or consulate and get what is called an entry visa or similiar. Without some form of visa you aren't legally allowed into the country. Most immigrants did not have visas and had to be processed at places like Ellis. The fact that we chose back then to welcome illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that they entered this nation without the correct documents. Just exactly like those you demonize today. Actually, as the others have already pointed out endlessly, the one who doesn't understand is you. I don't need to repeat everything they've already covered. But suffice it to say that you really have no clue about the immigration process back then. It's obviously different than how it is today. Your attempt to apply today's rules to the people back then makes your attempt at a point invalid from the start.

DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 10:40:01 AM)
Suire the immigration act of 1924 was the very first US law on immigration, except of course for the immigration acts of 1921 and 1917 as well as laws as far back as the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 and numerous treaties throughout the 19th century, Burlingame in 1868 for instance.

luckydawg -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 11:03:58 AM)
domken thinks people are so stupid they won't notice that he is changing terms. No one said there were no laws regarding immigration. It was demonstrated to that before 1924 Visas were not required, as dk falsely alleged. He is just such a weak person he will not admit when he is wrong. and goes through silly histronics like this. I guess a few of the really dumb leftwingers will think he is making a valid argument.

DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 11:30:23 AM)
No. What I'm saying is that entry documents were not called visas prior to the 20th century but that they did exist. As anyone who cares to look into such things as the laws and treaties I reference can find out.

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 11:37:36 AM)
Prior to the opening of Ellis Island, immigrant processing was the responsibility of the state, and before 1855, there was no official center. No national visas. 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. Thats all they were required to prove. 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. Visas and consulate requirements did not come into play until 1924. http://www.ellisislandimmigrants.org/ellis_island_history.htm

DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 11:49:29 AM)
That's simply wrong. The quotas were changed in 1924. From 3% to 2% of 1890 population IIRC. Immigration quotas had existed back decades if you include the chinese exclusion act (a quota of 0) but definitely since the Johnson Quota Act of 1921 (which was the first time a general quota for all nations was implemented). Asians had been severely restricted and outright banned for quite some time before 1921. As to US entry documents prior to 1924, I have a fine document signed by David Bailey, US Consul in Hong Kong in 1877. It attests that the woman in question is the wife of a laborer and not a prostitute and is therefore allowed entry into the US in accordance with the Page Act. Seems odd if the first restriction on immigration was in 1924.

luckydawg -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 11:58:19 AM)
yes anyone can go read 5 treaties on a goose chase. There is a reason domken isn't quoting anything

rulemylife -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 12:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg domken thinks people are so stupid they won't notice that he is changing terms. No one said there were no laws regarding immigration. It was demonstrated to that before 1924 Visas were not required, as dk falsely alleged. He is just such a weak person he will not admit when he is wrong. and goes through silly histronics like this. I guess a few of the really dumb leftwingers will think he is making a valid argument. Sounds like some poor puppy didn't get his Kibbles 'n Bits today. Commercial

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 9:37:55 PM)
The 1924 law established the “consular control system” of immigration by mandating that no alien may be permitted entrance to the United States without an unexpired immigration visa issued by an American consular officer abroad. Thus, the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service shared control of immigration. The Act halted "undesirable" immigration by quotas. The Act barred specific origins from the Asia-Pacific Triangle, which included Japan, China, the Philippines (then under U.S. control), Siam (Thailand), French Indochina (Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia), Singapore (then a British colony), Korea, Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Malaysia.[4] Based on the Naturalization Act of 1790, these immigrants, being non-white, were not eligible for naturalization, and the Act forbade further immigration of any persons ineligible to be naturalized.[4]

Elisabella -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 9:41:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. What I'm saying is that entry documents were not called visas prior to the 20th century but that they did exist. As anyone who cares to look into such things as the laws and treaties I reference can find out. Yes, but prior to 1924 they were not required for everyone who wished to legally immigrate. Your whole point rested on the fact that you believed immigrants on Ellis Island were entering the US illegally. Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to pinpoint exactly which law was being broken.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/12/2011 11:34:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. What I'm saying is that entry documents were not called visas prior to the 20th century but that they did exist. As anyone who cares to look into such things as the laws and treaties I reference can find out. Yes, but prior to 1924 they were not required for everyone who wished to legally immigrate. Your whole point rested on the fact that you believed immigrants on Ellis Island were entering the US illegally. Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to pinpoint exactly which law was being broken. [sm=popcorn.gif] This is where DK starts to spin madly with the semantic games.

DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/13/2011 7:56:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. What I'm saying is that entry documents were not called visas prior to the 20th century but that they did exist. As anyone who cares to look into such things as the laws and treaties I reference can find out. Yes, but prior to 1924 they were not required for everyone who wished to legally immigrate. Your whole point rested on the fact that you believed immigrants on Ellis Island were entering the US illegally. Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to pinpoint exactly which law was being broken. No. My whole point was that they did not have status as legal immigrants until they were processed. They would certainly have been arrested if they were found to have circumvented that process. Seems to me that is exacxtly like what we call illegal immigrants today sans the way to get their status regularized.

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/13/2011 8:30:25 AM)
No one has legal status until they are processed. The processing centers were not international, they were, initially, done state by state until Ellis Island opened up. Even at that point of entry, they could have been denied and returned to their country of origin... as stated in previous posts.

Elisabella -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/13/2011 2:12:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. My whole point was that they did not have status as legal immigrants until they were processed. They would certainly have been arrested if they were found to have circumvented that process. Seems to me that is exacxtly like what we call illegal immigrants today sans the way to get their status regularized. Yes, the ones who circumvented the process would be illegal immigrants. The ones who completed the proper process the government at the time required would be legal immigrants. Sort of...exactly the same as today. The government sets up a process to immigrate. If you follow that process, you're legal, if you avoid it and sneak in, you're not.

Elisabella -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/13/2011 2:13:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No one has legal status until they are processed. The processing centers were not international, they were, initially, done state by state until Ellis Island opened up. Even at that point of entry, they could have been denied and returned to their country of origin... as stated in previous posts. Australia offers something called a 'bridge visa' for people who don't have legal status while their applications are being processed...it's most commonly used for refugees, and people whose visas expire while their new one is still being processed. The status of immigrants on Ellis Island who have not yet been admitted would be something similar in nature to a bridge visa.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875