The immigration laws, especially the per-country limit, was rooted in explicit racism. It was not a mistake or an oversight. The people that wrote the Immigration Act of 1965 had the foresight to predict a lot of skilled immigrants coming from China and India. They wrote Section 202 of the INA intentionally, to exclude Indian and Chinese immigrants.

> I'd say we should let in everybody whose presence makes this country a better place to live. And nobody who makes it worse. That's a selfish, aggressionist policy, and it seems consistent with ethnic/nationality based quotas and it seems consistent with ethnic/nationality based quotas.

So to you, racist immigration laws ("ethnic/nationality based quotas"): "makes this country a better place to live".

Well then, why not go back to the National Origins Formula that used from 1921 to 1965? It explicitly set preferences for Western European countries, because of course, the authors of those immigration laws thought it "made the country a better place to live". C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula

I must admit, it's quite amazing to see an open white nationalist on HN. I looked at your profile, and it looks like you worked for RethinkDB. Funny thing is I've known Slava Akhmechet (coffeemug on HN) from back during his days at Stony Brook. (I used to frequent the LUGSB club that he was pretty heavily involved in back then.) I wonder what Slava would think about your white nationalist comments.

---

The other important thing to recognize is that the majority of this country is in favor of immigrants. And the only reason the law doesn't reflect the desires of the majority, is because the U.S. is a truly representative democracy.

Pew Research studies have shown that the majority of Americans are pro-immigrant, and want to grant legal status to the undocumented[6]. Moreover, some pro-immigrant folk might still vote Republican due to wanting lower taxes, pro-life views, opposition to large government, etc.

Take the Dream Act. The only reason the Dream Act didn't pass in 2010 was because of the Senate filibuster (despite Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency). The Senate, a wholly undemocratic institution to begin with, blocked the Dream Act with its effective 60% majority requirement for legislation.

In 2013, the Senate managed to pass a bipartisan immigration bill, but the Speaker of the House blocked it[1]. Despite there being majority support among members of the House. Why was it blocked then? Because of the Hastert Rule[2]. And how did the Republicans have a majority in the House in 2013? Democrats received 1.4 million votes in 2012[3]. Yet, Republicans won because of massive gerrymandering[4]. Ugly, undemocratic gerrymandering.

So if the United States were a more representative democracy, most of the undocumented immigrants in this country would have had rights and freedom already. Even that disgrace has become President despite losing the popular vote by 3 million.

Current immigration laws are rooted in racism and xenophobia of the ugliest kind. Grover Norquist said it beautifully: "Historically, opposition to immigration in the United States has been racially and religiously motivated in the ugliest, nastiest way possible"[5].

The only reason pro-immigrant policy has not become the law is because a minority is allowed to dictate policy thanks to a bunch of highly undemocratic institutions and practices.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo....

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Re....

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

[5] https://reason.com/video/grover-norquist-on-open-borders-and....

[6] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/majority-of....