From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Broken Promises/Anit-Clinton sentiment growing
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:01:07 GMT

markb@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Mark Bower) writes:

>Does anyone talk about Rush on this net anymore!? Me neither...

>In <C1C7qG.JAJ@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>	Steve Kellmeyer writes:

>>> You know, I really have a tough time understanding this one [Haitian
>>> refugees].  The US had 
>>> no national immigration laws for the first century - didn't really start that
>>> up until after the Civil War.  Anybody who wandered in was ipso facto American.
>>> We picked up shiploads of starving Irish from the 1848-50 potatoe famine
>>> this way (they'd land in Canada and walk across the border because the 
>>> harbor authorities in New York and Boston imposed their own little 
>>> "immigration laws" to keep the Irish out).

>Interesting to check the numbers. At the height of the Ellis Island influx, the
>number of accepted immigrants was around half what America currently averages.

And the population was also half what it is today.  Percentage is the same.


>>> It didn't hurt the country a bit to have them in.

>Historically incorrect. Local residents routinely repressed the new arrivals for
>fear of losing jobs to them, and the immigrants rioted so frequently that
>National Guard units were sold to the highest bidder to go into the streets and
>gun them down. I read once about a at the time financier named Jim Fisk who did 
>exactly this.

That's correct insofar as it goes, but it don't go far enough.  Those
self-same immigrants also provided the labor necessary for most of the
major works projects of the 1800's, including western expansion and 
railroad building (not to mention the way it swelled the Union army in
the Civil War).  All your example shows is that xenophobia does nobody
any good.

>>> Ditto Southeast Asian

>Veritable slave labor for Western railroads.

True.  But the point is that those immigrants were indispensable to the
American infrastructure.  Now I don't advocate treating immigrants like
slaves, but I would point out that immigrants are more than willing to
do jobs that American citizens consider demeaning (janitorial work, etc.)
simply because immigrants KNOW how bad the rest of the world is.  The
worst job in the US beats most any job in the Third World.  By limiting
immigration, the US cuts itself off from keeping track of exactly how 
bad off the rest of the world is.  We get too easily caught up in our own
provincial little problems without thinking about how wonderful our life
is, even with those problems.

>>> and Cuban immigrants.

>Some of the original migrant farm workers after the Spanish-American war.

Thank you for making my point.

>>> Immigrants
>>> tend to be very hard working and loyal Americans.  The only thing that's
>>> changed is the way our society treats them.

>Correct. We now prosecute those who kill them.

Thank God.

>>> Instead of letting them make
>>> it on their own, we insist on treating them as incompetent boobs who need
>>> hand-outs.

>I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS POINT! :-)

>American history has some truly surprising stuff. All the more so since it is all
>so recent in a "young" nation like the US. If you thought Kent State was bad,
>check out how anti-Civil War demostrators were treated in NYC. I believe the
>numbers are around 10-20 dead per weekend!! The Pinkerton agency broke up a
>railroad strike by breaking open a few hundred skulls. USGovt-Indian stories are
>ghastly in both directions.

>There is not much doubt that America has grown up a great deal and that we handle
>problems far more equitably than ever before. Nowadays, we may scream, we may
>push, we even kill - at a horrendous rate - but we handle a dynamic situation
>that would have made those wonderful "fore-fathers" we hear so much about
>petition Mother England for re-instatement!

Probably closer to the truth than many realize.  My point is, though, that
immigration is not a bad thing, and attempting to limit it probably is.
Every time we cut out an immigrant, we cut out someone who is willing to
work his heart out here in exchange for the chance to come here.  We miss
out on the first-hand knowledge of foriegn conditions that is necessary for
decent foreign policy understanding among the general population.  If there
are no Mexicans on the block, we won't really appreciate how much better 
off we are here than in Mexico.  It may sound self-serving to think of 
immigrants this way, but they're darn useful people to have around.

Steve
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu