The Immigration Question (this is long)

Fred at Mad As Hell mentions the hypocrisy of the anti-immigration forces. Did they forget that they too are descended (partly or entirely) from immigrants? BigB posted this comment that, of course, got me all riled up_[1]. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart as two of my grandparents were illegal immigrants. And yet, amazingly, not brown. Was that even possible?
A partial quote:

OK. Being an immigrant is great and all. We all know that we came from immigrants and that the only true Americans are Native Americans. However, the vast majority of anglos whose ancestors migrated to the US did so legally. They overcrowded ships and entered ports in New York and so forth. They were forced to wait in holding structures similar to gyms while they waited for their names to be called to be processed into this country legally.

What seems to be taking shape now is that the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country feel that they deserve to be treated as equals when they illegally cross over or under our border. I agree that there should not be punishment for institutions that provide humanitarian support for those who make it over here illegally because it is the Christian thing to do. However, it is the American thing to do to secure our borders and round up people who disrespect our country by entering here illegally.

Those who enter illegally are not following the past traditions of the legal immigrants who came into this country during the industrial revolution and so forth and started a new generation of Americans. The illegals protesting in the streets have no right to say that this is a country of immigrants and that they are not criminals when a) they are criminals and b) there illegal entry into this country shows their contempt for our laws and should not be allowed the right to protest their cause in the streets of this country.

First of all, when most of the anglo-Europeans came here there weren’t quite as many immigration laws as there are now. It wasn’t a 10 year struggle to become a citizen of this country. They had only to survive the trip and, maybe, stand in line a few hours.

Some history of U.S. immigration laws according to American Heritage Page:

1607-1830:

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the control over the admission of newcomers was mainly in the hands of the individual colonies. These were dictated by the desire to attract settlers to virgin territories or by the need to keep out unwanted social burdens (dependent stranger)

in Virginia, laws encouraged newcomers by giving the “head-right” of 50 acres to each arrival if he/she paid for their own passage or to the master who paid for them.

In 1790, a law made citizenship available to aliens after two years of residence. Then, in 1798, a more rigid law extended the time required to 14 years. Finally, in 1802, the interval was kept to 5 years, where it remained. The government left the rest up to the individual states, who mostly wanted to attract settlers and immigrants. These states had liberal land laws and also sent out commissions in Europe to make their resources known to possible immigrants. In fact, in 1819, a law was made designed to protect immigrants from dishonest shipmasters. It included minimum conditions of safety and sanitation. Although this law was difficult to carry out, still, as you can see, there were really no efforts to keep out immigrants in the 1600-1800’s and in general, the presence of newcomers was accepted as yet another facet to America’s diversity.

Was that when your ancestors came to the country legally? Didn’t seem that hard for them, did it? We’re, of course, only talking about anglo-Europeans at this point. We’ll leave the slaves out of this equation. Maybe you need something more recent to make your point about how hard it was for immigrants to follow the law “back in the day”.

1830-1890:

Propaganda was spread in favor of laws restricting immigration as a means of protecting the American wage earned

In 1875 was the first restriction of immigration of prostitutes and felons

In 1882 the government reacted to the anti-immigrant feelings, such as anti-Chinese riot and the U.S. enacted further restrictions barring the insane, the retarded, and people likely to need public care and the Chinese Exclusion Act suspending Chinese laborers for ten years

Ok, now we’re getting to the hard part. Still, I wonder why they had to enact the Chinese Exclusion Act?_[2] Maybe there were too many Chinese building railroads? Were they here legally, I wonder…hmmm, the world may never know.

1890-1924:

In 1892 an act passed by Congress provided for the examination of immigrants and the excluding of convicts, polygamists, prostitutes, people suffering from diseases, and people liable to public charges

In 1917 a law was passed that enlarged the list of people who can be legally excluded

It imposed a literary test and created the Asiatic Barred Zone to keep Asians out of this country

It was updated in 1918

In 1921, Congress passed a quota which severely affected the Asian Russia, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and islands in the Pacific and Atlantic

In 1924, the law was expanded to let in northern and western Europeans and exclude almost everyone else

Ok, I think we’ve found when your ancestors came in. But they were European, weren’t they? Looks like they had a pretty easy time still. My great-grandmother brought her children here in the 40’s. She never did get American citizenship. But here I am, full-blooded American. Funny how that works, huh?
Now, let’s continue talking about “those people”- aka “the brown immigrants”. Seems they’re not the only ones here illegally, but those are the ones that scare most people. How about the illegal Irish immigrants that marched St.Patrick’s Day? Why no uproar about them?_[3]

Although most of this country’s 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants are from Mexico and Central America, about 50,000 Irish people are among 3 million illegal immigrants from countries outside Latin America. Other countries contributing significantly to illegal immigration are Russia, Poland, Canada, Haiti, Korea, India, China and the Philippines.

Well, shit, there are still some brown people in that equation. My bad. But did I really see there are illegals from Canada? Whaddya know…looks like we need a fence to the north too.

I just want to know where the outrage is about illegal anglo-Europeans. Am I missing something? Don’t worry, though. The Irish are working hard to make it easier for them to just walk on in. And so is their Prime Minister.

At St. Patrick’s Day parades in San Francisco and Chicago last weekend, activists with the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform wore white-and-green T-shirts saying “Legalize The Irish” and passed out fliers urging people to call their elected representatives in support of allowing undocumented workers to earn legal status as guest workers. Similar activism is expected at parades in other cities in coming days.

Adding heft to the immigrants’ message, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, who visited San Jose on Tuesday, plans to push President Bush for legal status for illegal Irish immigrants when he visits the White House on Friday, St. Patrick’s Day.

Where, oh, where was the news coverage? I don’t know. Lost in the abyss of brown bodies, I suppose.

As far as not the opposition to their right to peacefully protest…Well, I guess if American companies are busily exploiting the labor force in their countries, perhaps they should be allowed to come here to get what they should be allowed there - a decent wage to make a decent life. Besides, a great many of those protesters are Americans, whose parents just happen to be immigrants. Would you deny George Lopez a right to protest? And, again, I ask where is the outrage at the Irish protesting? Did you even know about it? Does it make a difference to you?

I won’t hold my breath for your answer.

_{[1] Doesn’t take much these days.
[2] Why is Chinese immigration always ignored when talking about the history of immigrants in this country?
[3] Rhetorical question, of course, because I already know the answer.}