When Anti-Immigration Protests Turn Deadly

roflbot71214Anti-immigration fever finally came to a head as armed mobs attacked immigrant homes and churches. The final death toll may never be determined, but it is estimated that at least 20 people died and more than 100 were wounded before order was restored. This wasn’t along the United States border with Mexico,  this was in Philadelphia, in 1844 – 170 years ago this month.

“Hey! Wait a second! Didn’t you just write something a couple of weeks ago that caused people to think that a restaurant owner in South Carolina was refusing service to minorities based off the Hobby Lobby case?” Why yes, I certainly did, and this is another example of current events mirroring those in our past. Enjoy.


So what’s the parallel between the riots in 1844 and what’s going on with our current Central American refugee crisis that is the subject of nearly every political talk show? 1844 was the year before the Irish potato famine which saw the total collapse of the Irish food supply which was almost completely reliant on the potato. Over one million people died and another million emigrated, not out of choice, but for their very survival. Just like the Central American refugees today, they were not welcomed with open arms by many people who were the descendants of immigrants themselves.

However, Irish Catholics were already coming to America prior to the Potato Famine, and in the 1840s they accounted for almost one half of the total immigrants to this country. Needless to say, the people of German, Dutch and British descent who were already here weren’t too happy about that, and angry protests (along with occasional bloody riots) broke out periodically over a couple of decades. Back in the 1840s, there wasn’t a strong police force with riot control gear to put down the violence, so the “well-regulated” militia was called out.

Do these anti-immigration protests and political dialogue sound familiar? They should. Here’s a brief background of what led up to the July 1844 riots in Philadelphia:

In the five months prior to the riots, nativist groups had been spreading a rumor that Catholics were trying to remove the Bible from public schools. A nativist rally in Kensington erupted in violence on May 6 and started a deadly riot that would result in the destruction of two Catholic churches and numerous other buildings. Riots erupted again in July, after it was discovered that St. Philip Neri’s Catholic Church in Southwark had armed itself for protection. Fierce fighting broke out between the nativists and the soldiers sent to protect the church, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. Several Catholic churches were burned but no Catholics were killed. (Source)

Back in those times, Protestants were the majority in government and saw the wave of Catholic immigrants as a threat to their way of life – just like many gullible Fox News viewers and anti-immigrant militia members or protestors do today. And just like the xenophobic sentiment is a part of today’s Tea Party and right-wing Republican, it was a strong political force back then as well.

The other new party to challenge Whigs’ role as Democrats’ major foe between 1854 and 1856 was the anti-Catholic, anti-immigration Know Nothing party. Started as a secret fraternity known as the Order of the Star Spangled Banner and reacting to a massive wave of European immigration between 1845 and 1855 as well as fear of the apparently burgeoning political influence of Roman Catholics, Know Nothings confined their membership to native-born Protestants and sought to increase the naturalization period for immigrants from five to twenty-one years while proscribing all immigrants and Catholics from public office. (Source)

Does this sound a lot like the current anti-immigration “Obama is trying to destroy America” rhetoric? I sure think it does. A lot of people have compared the militia members who have headed to the border with weapons to the KKK, Nazis and so on. However, the more accurate description would be 19th century Know Nothing movement which is portrayed in the 2002 Martin Scorsese film “Gangs of New York” starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel Day-Lewis.

While the current anti-immigration protests have not yet turned deadly like in the 1800s, the presence of armed, self-described militia members positioning themselves on the border is needlessly escalating an already tense political and humanitarian situation. If you look at the rhetoric in the book “FOREIGN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE LIBERTIES OF THE UNITED STATES: THE NUMBERS OF BRUTUS” by Samuel Morse (yes, the inventor of the telegraph), it absolutely reeks of the same nativist, paranoid diatribes coming from many of those who are frothing at the mouth about America’s changing demographics today. Just replace the word “Popery” with the current political buzzwords “Muslims” or “illegals” and you have a more eloquent, but just as paranoid version of anything you’ll hear on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other right-wing media sources today.

Here is a specimen of the disposition of Popery to meddle in civil matters in this country where it has the power; the Bishop is the propounder, and the Missionary one of the administrators of the civil laws. It is not true that Popery meddles not with the politics of the country. The cloven foot has already shownitself. Popery is organized at the elections! For example: In Michigan the Bishop Richard, a Jesuit (since deceased,) was several times chosen delegate to Congress from the Territory, the majority of the people being Catholics. (Source)

Every generation seems to have their own struggle with xenophobia and prejudice. Today it is people of Hispanic descent or Muslims who are painted as not sharing “American values” (meaning Anglo-Saxon Protestant values). In my parents’ time it was segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans. Before that, it was Jews, Italians, the Chinese, the Irish…and the list goes on. In fact, in the 1930’s, the State Department refused to take in German Jewish refugees because they were thought to be a possible strain on the economy during the Great Depression. Everyone knows what happened to them after that.

America’s immigration laws placed quotas on the number of people allowed to enter the United States from other countries. In 1939, the quota allowed for 27,370 German citizens to immigrate to the United States. In 1938, more than 300,000 Germans-mostly Jewish refugees-had applied for U.S. visas (entry permits). A little over 20,000 applications were approved. Beyond the strict national quotas, the United States openly denied visas to any immigrant “likely to become a public charge.” This ruling proved to be a serious problem for many Jewish refugees. Most had lost everything when the Nazis took power, and they might need government assistance after they immigrated to the United States.

Shortly after she was appointed to the cabinet, Frances Perkins, President Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, proposed an executive order on refugees and immigration. Perkins suggested that the State Department should give priority to immigrants seeking refuge from racial or religious persecution. The State Department objected to this order because it would antagonize relations with Germany and alienate jobless American citizens. FDR never issued the order, and State Department officials in Europe continued to reject many visa applications from Jewish refugees. (Source)

America was built by immigrants and those seeking a better life, free from persecution, violence, poverty and hunger. We already have a “wet foot, dry foot” policy for Cubans, so why should we treat children fleeing violence and poverty in Central America, especially if they already have family here who can take care of them? In fact, they can’t even request asylum unless they’re on US soil already, per current asylum rules and thanks to a law signed in 2008, most unaccompanied minors will not be sent back to their country of origin.

Unaccompanied minors fall under the bipartisan law, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

That law says the children cannot be sent back. They must instead be held humanely by the Department of Health and Human Services until the courts release them to a “suitable family member” in this country. (Source)

The New Colossus” engraved on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty doesn’t state which immigrants and asylum seekers we accept and which we don’t. We are a land of freedom and opportunity for all people of the world – that’s what made America great. Those who wish to deny the same opportunity their ancestors enjoyed to new refugees forget that truth. America has absorbed wave after wave of refugees since the founding of our nation, and we’re better for it – not worse.

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”


Comments

Facebook comments

  • Guest

    Eh, remember that part in Blazing Saddles where they say they won’t take the Irish? Yes, that was true (though we laughed at it).

  • Sarah Cherry Jumel

    Ah yes. The Whig party. What happened to them? Oh, they are completely GONE because they ceased to represent their constituency? Imagine a political party doing something that stupid! It could never happen AGAIN

  • Jim Bean

    Obie now want’s 3.7 billion to pay for the latest in his policy failures and he wants ME to cough up the money. And if I do, or course he will have no reason to do anything about this misadventure or the next, or the next. This money should come from a wage cut to all Democratic Party affiliated politicians and anyone they appointed or hired during the Obama years, and anyone who openly supported this dude.

    • Ilyssa

      You mean Bush’s policy failures? Last I checked Congress has yet to pass any immigration laws since 2008. The reason these kids get to stay temporarily is because of Bush’s law. It has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.

      • Jim Bean

        The Left constantly points to Bush failures to absolve Obama of his. How the hell does anyone benefit from that?

      • Ilyssa

        This has nothing to do with absolving Obama. It’s just the truth. He didn’t create this problem and you look pretty damn silly trying to pin it on him. Unaccompanied minors fall under the bipartisan law, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. That law says the children cannot be sent back. They must instead be held humanely by the Department of Health and Human Services until the courts release them to a “suitable family member” in this country. So why don’t you guys own up to the failings of your own party and stop trying to blame everything on Obama – especially stuff that clearly isn’t his doing. You guys loved Bush – now you have to own it!

      • Ilyssa

        The chickens are coming home to roost as they say. 8 years of failed policy are finally coming back to bite you guys in the ass. Took long enough but karma is a bitch aint she?

      • Jim Bean

        Sorry, but I’m paying Obama to do a job (now) he isn’t doing and you’re willingness to give him a free ride isn’t persuading me similarly.

      • Brian

        You’re also paying Congress to do a job, and yet they’re not doing it even though they’re the ones who are supposed to be doing the job you think Obama should be doing. Why aren’t you bitching at them instead of trolling a left-wing blog?

      • strayaway

        No, they aren’t doing their job. They have cause to impeach the President but half of Republicans are in league with him in, for instance, allowing and encouraging this economic invasion.

      • strayaway

        Bush was a failure and also encouraged illegal immigration. Now let’s move on to the present. Since you are blaming that law on Bush, are you suggesting that Obama and democrats should reverse that law? If so, we are in agreement. However, just blaming Bush for what is going on now accomplishes nothing. I would add, that as 93% of this “children” (80% male and averaging age 14) have a ‘go to’ address in their pockets, that we deport any illegal alien recipients of these children upon delivery. That way, the children would be reunited with their families, we could get rid of them together in the custody of their caring parents or other relatives, and some jobs would open up for US citizens. It would be a win-win solution.

      • Charles Vincent

        And Obama is continuing in some cases and recycling in others those bush policies.

      • Brian

        Facts are facts. Any attempt at immigration reform is blocked by the Republicans. There hasn’t been any since 2008. Obama’s policies haven’t failed because the Republicans have refused to allow any of them to go through.
        Give credit where credit is due.

      • Jim Bean

        The Dems attempts at ‘immigration reform’ are blocked because they don’t include any meaningful measures to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, I suspect we are reaching the threshold where they disappear into the tall grass and leave it to the Pubs to deal with the mess they’ve (Dem’s) created. Occasionally they will issue a weak communique from the marshes objecting to the Pubs ‘lack of compassion’ but they will do their best to let the needed reforms take place while they appear to be opposed.

      • Brian

        When you share thousands of miles of border and have hundreds of thousands of them closely related to US citizens, you cannot realistically hope to stem the flow of immigrants. Let’s all be mature and accept that fact. The border patrol is well-funded and still stretched to the limits in trying to do this.
        What’s more, I don’t see the Republicans presenting any realistic solutions. All I hear is “shoot them all”, and I shouldn’t have to explain why that’s terrible, or “build a giant, electric wall that goes underground too” which sounds like something an eight year old boy would think up while playing with Lego.
        Finally, I don’t see how the Democrats have created this mess, since current immigration policy is mostly the work of the Bush administration. Bush’s golden parachute in 2008 regarding child immigrants was probably the only good thing about his administration.
        This problem can’t be solved and it will never go away.

      • strayaway

        Brian, you are confusing the word “immigrant” with “illegal alien”. We do have borders, immigration laws, and legal immigration. Almost no one is saying “shoot them all”. I would, for instance, heavily fine the cheating employers of illegal aliens to pay for all of this instead of stiffing taxpayers for $3.7B for Obama to blow through. That would probably be more efficient than round ups and mindless spending requests.

        Bush has been gone for 6.5 years now. You really must come up with better excuses for Obama’s shortcomings and/or intents.

      • asdf

        “‘you are confusing the word “immigrant” with “illegal alien”.'”

        Red herring.

        “‘We do have borders, immigration laws, and legal immigration.'”

        Still a red herring. Playing word games over “legal” and “illegal” does nothing to absolve the situation.

        “‘…stiffing taxpayers for $3.7B for Obama to blow through.'”

        Did it occur to you that fixing this situation can’t be done for free? We need a glut of new judges and infrastructure in order to speed up the process while still doing it according to Bush’s 2008 law.

        “‘Bush has been gone for 6.5 years now. You really must come up with better excuses for Obama’s shortcomings and/or intents.'”

        Bush’s laws don’t become null and void just because Bush left office. All laws that a president signs remain on the books indefinitely until congress alters or removes them. Did you know that? (LOL) Bush’s law can’t be changed right now due to a bunch of republicans clogging up the due process of fixing Bush’s law so that the situation at the border can be resolved.

      • strayaway

        US resident come in two varieties; citizens and aliens. Aliens are either legal or illegal. Those are succinct legal terms. The more Orwellian Newspeak PC term “immigrant” is, in contrast, intended to be fuzzy. Were, for instance, most of Mohammed Atta’s crews “immigrants”? They were mostly illegal aliens who had overstayed their visas. I would hate to define them as immigrants though because they didn’t come here to reside with us and our immigration agency did not give them immigration status. The problem and intent of fuzzy terms is to make it impossible to think clearly according to Orwell. Thank you though for making it clear that, in you mind, legal points don’t have nothing to do with absolving this situation.

        I am very aware that this mess Obama inspired cannot be resolved for free. Each of these “children” is costing $254/day to maintain, shipping them all over the country will cost money, and public schools cost an average of $12,700/year times the number of children time the number of years they will go to school here for starters. My better solution is to fine cheating employers say $10,000 per incident of hiring illegal aliens to pay for the cost of handling these children. Think of it as a user tax on those who profit by hiring cheaper foreign labor. It would be fairer to tax them then US taxpayers who are not responsible for any of this.

        Are you suggesting that you support reversing the law although obstructionist Republicans want to keep it? If so, I’m on your side. This is not a problem just caused by our idiot President. The US Chamber of Commerce, a Republican bastion, is spending a lot of money trying to keep the supply of cheap labor flowing in to bust unions and suppress wages.

      • asdf

        “‘US resident come in two varieties; citizens and aliens. Aliens are either legal or illegal. Those are succinct legal terms. The more Orwellian… [descends into gibberish]'”

        Still beating a dead horse over your word games. Still a red herring. People have been moving onto this continent from all over the world in droves since the pilgrims arrived.

        “‘I am very aware that this mess Obama inspired…'”

        Incorrect. This “mess” was “inspired” due to the fact that these people’s home country has become increasingly violent and unlivable.They’re just trying to find someplace that’s safer.

      • strayaway

        So “immigrants” can mean about anything you want it to mean then? Mohammed Atta’s crew = immigrants. People with green cards = immigrants. People here with the intention of going back home when they earn enough money = immigrants. Why not just make grunting noises so you don’t have to have a big vocabulary? One word can mean lots of things.

        I didn’t know that anyone believed the nonsense about “these people’s home country has become increasingly violent and unlivable”. Unaccompanied children numbers are up 92% this year because of what specific change in each of these countries over the last year? What, exactly is the catalyst? Answer: Obama gave hope to the people of Central America that any minor showing up here would be deemed a dreamer and be made a citizen. The First Lady of Guatamala says the migration is to reunify families and not because of violence back home. She is here now checking to make sure the US is providing good care of Guatemalan children. The children wouldn’t come if their undocumented parents didn’t find it so easy to work in a country that loves cheap labor.

        Today, one plane load of 39 children and mothers was returned to Guatemala of the 90,000 children our government expects to arrive here this year. (0004%)

      • SpaceCadet Williams

        How about doing some fact checking, Jim. This was actually Bush’s policy that failed. Ever do any research? It’s a little effort to take but worth it. Learn, comprehend, and get over yourself!

      • Jim Bean

        You’re comment has considerable merit as a counter argument to the claim that this is not a Bush policy failure. However, no one made that claim so why are you bringing it up? Are you saying that consequently, Obama is free to ignore it? Or am I missing your point?

      • William Fite

        I guess you missed the part where Obama extended this law in 2012 or 2013. You need to do a little research.

      • Ilyssa

        That is absolutely inaccurate. The law was never extended in 2012/2013. The last time any immigration laws we’re passed or amended was 2008. So great of you to make up lies to suit your delusions.

      • Kevin Currier

        If you have to guess as to the year, “do a little research” seems somewhat hypocritical.

      • strayaway

        Ronald Reagan agreed to immigration reform by providing asylum to illegal aliens in return for the democrats promise to patch the borders and enforce illegal immigration. Democrats lied so now we have millions of additional illegal aliens. We are still waiting for Democrats to fulfill their part of agreed to reforms.

      • UglyScrubs

        Reagan A.K.A the god of all good things in the conservative world

      • NF

        You’ll need to source that with actual bills that were and were not passed.

      • strayaway

        I don’t “need” to do anything but I sometimes oblige liberals who want things provided to them. Try the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), public Law 99-603, including section 245A.

      • asdf

        Sorry, but there is nothing in IRCA PL99-603 section 245A that pertains to your claim about “patching the border.” Maybe you should just admit that you’re just making stuff up.

      • strayaway

        asdf, I will help you. Look up the article, “A Bailout for Illegal Immigrants? Lessons from the Implementation of the 1986 IRCA Amnesty” By David North January 2010.

        The article goes into a lot of detail about the history of what went wrong with the enforcement part of Reagan’s amnesty of 2.7M illegal aliens.

      • asdf

        The article doesn’t support your conjecture that “democrats” failed to fulfill a “promise” of theirs “patch the border.”

      • strayaway

        I disagree. Remember, for instance, those Democrats, listed by name who got involved with the agricultural aspect? Schumer, Teddy Kennedy were mentioned elsewhere. I can come up with some quotes if you wish. I think that what you should be noting to make your case was that there were also Republicans involved who had an interest in not keeping too close track of of the immigration status of those hired. The lesson learned was that every scrap of legislation – building fences, border protection, ascertaining the immigration status of those hired must be secured before any amnesty is provided. That was Reagan’s mistake. He believed that this was all going to be done. Democrats lied and even some Republicans’ interests lined up with Democrats to make sure cheaper foreign labor kept rolling in.

      • Steve Reaves

        You know, we’re really starting not to give a fuck what you think. The majority of us that voted for Obama would be happy and supportive if he ordered in the military the next time conservatives interfered with a Federal operation and mowed you all down in the street. I’d even volunteer to mop up the blood.

    • crabjack

      And I want all my money back that went to the Bush/Cheney wars. And all the money the GOP obstructionists are wasting trying to send our country back into the middle ages.

      • Jim Bean

        The Bush/Cheney/H.Clinton/Reid/Biden/Kerry wars, I assume you mean.

      • crabjack

        No I mean the wars that president Bush/Cheney lied to all of us to justify starting….

      • Ellen H.

        He means the Iraq war that was started by the administration of George W. Bush telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we had to go in. We were told we would be greeted as liberators. That’s what he’s talking about.

      • Jim Bean

        “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

      • Ellen H.

        Bush Administration’s pitch to the American people was: “Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons and even nuclear weapons that he plans to give to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda who will then smuggle them into the United States and kill tens of thousands of people.” See, anyone can find a quote to back up a side. However, the main responsibility for presenting the case for war falls on the Bush administration. They were the ones who were releasing the “intelligence” reports.

      • Jim Bean

        Apparently, you think Bush was the only one privileged to see the intelligence reports and that’s a level of simple-mindedness to overwhelming to overcome.

      • Ellen H.

        Again, the administration was the presenter of the information. I doubt all the senators and representatives were in the intelligence meetings.Bush and his administration got us into Iraq.

      • Jim Bean

        You’re willing to absolve all the Dems who supported the action. I’m not surprised. They have never been guilty of any errors. That’s the exclusive domain of the Pubs. At least, that’s the way it is according to the simple minded.

      • Ellen H.

        The government at the time is responsible. However, people like you tend to want to blame Obama for what is going on right now like he completely started the entire shebang when it was something our country started screwing up in the 1950s. I notice I’m not the one committing a logical fallacy so we can just decide what that means.

      • strayaway

        Oh, you mean the Iraq war that Bush started after Sen. Clinton voted to allow him to do so, the Iraq War that Senators Clinton and Obama dutifully funded without protest every time Bush asked them to, the Iraq War candidate Obama promised to end immediately upon becoming president (“you can take that to the bank”), you mean the Iraq war President Obama kept going until just one month before the Iraqi parliament had ordered us out, you mean the Iraq war that President Obama negotiated to remain in longer.

      • Ellen H.

        So they were the only two senators that voted? Can you not read. The Bush administration was the presenter of the information. But of course go ahead and blame the democrats. Obama probably saw that things were going to go to hell, but he went ahead with the agreement BUSH reached with his war.

      • strayaway

        No, I didn’t write that “only two senators” voted. I did, however, point out that at least two prominent Democratic Senators acted as Bush’s accomplices. To quote an Iraq war cheerleader –

        “I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.

        Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people …[I]ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including Al Qaeda members.” -Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), October 10, 2002.

      • Ellen H.

        Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and the rest of his cronies got us into war. They were the ones with the intelligence information. If I remember correctly the head of the CIA said the intelligence they had was a “slam dunk”. They are the ones who made the case. They are the ones who got us into the war. Continually quoting Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama as senators, saying what they did based on information given to them by the Bush administration is really grasping at straws.

      • strayaway

        The guys you mention were guilty of course but everyone who voted to hand over the congressional power to declare war to Bush and otherwise supported his war were also guilty, There were some like Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader who were able to see through the lies and say no. What is your defense then of Hillary and Obama; that they were incompetent? Even so, at some point they probably figured out that they were lied to but continued to support the war anyway. That isn’t incompetence, that’s evil. Then these clowns mess up Libya, were trying to get support to bomb Syria, and supplied Syrian rebels with weaponry. I read yesterday the ISIS just got their hands on 23 donated US howitzers. Thanks, Obama. When does this end?

      • Ellen H.

        It’s nice to see you seem to realize it’s not all Obama’s fault. I get so sick of people who don’t realize it was everyone in the government. I say it ends by the U.S. totally withdrawing from the Middle East. We’ve been screwing stuff up there since the 1950s.

      • strayaway

        Agreed. Once in a while I go off in a tangent about buying Chevy Volts in part because building them employs Americans and because their purchase contribute toward not needing any more Mid-East oil and sticking our nose into their politics and religious concerns. That’s pro-active behavior that doesn’t depend on our politicians.

    • Jean Hanson Ostrom

      You’re an idiot!

  • William Fite

    The question I have and I did not see any reference to in this article is, Were the immigration discussed in the article in the 1800’s based on legal or illegal immigration?

    • Ellen H.

      Until 1875 we pretty much had open immigration. There were provisions that allowed for deportation of undesirables.

      • William Fite

        Ok so for the majority of the time frame the article is presenting, immigration was legal. The immigration going on now is illegal. Hence the people getting upset.

      • Ellen H.

        Yes, but the law that was passed by a bi-partisan effort and signed into law by President Bush says we won’t turn away children from countries other than Canada and Mexico. They’re getting upset at a law that has been on the books since 2008.

      • AW

        No, what’s going on now is NOT illegal. It’s not even immigration. It’s asylum-seeking. People are coming to the border in plain view, finding a Border Patrol Agent, and asking for help. There is absolutely nothing illegal in that. It is the correct and legal way to request asylum.

  • James Tbh Ryle

    Just one problem, the Germans, the Italians, the Irish, the Protestants, the Catholics, etc…..did not walk into an existing welfare state. There was no HUD to get a subsidized apartment or home, there was no Welfare office to get subsidized food. The immigrants of the 1700-1900’s came here to their new American homeland and wanted their children to become “Americans”, to get a job, to learn the language, etc…..90% of the hispanics coming here are good solid family oriented people, but do not want American citizenship. Many do not even want to use “the system”. But lest we forget, a nation with no borders will cease to be a nation. Migrate legally! We have great opportunities enabling legal migration! The Democrats like Pelosi galloping down to the Texas border pandering to “the children” would do well to remember we have many children in desperate need already here (and of course many unborn children too – she fails to “love so much”).

    • AW

      Umm…. The 19th-century immigrant Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, etc were GIVEN FREE LAND!!!!!!! Can’t get much more of a welfare state than the homesteading programs; the US government was trying to consolidate its hold on stolen Indian lands, so they recruited white Europeans to fill it up. All they had to do was survive two years and build a house with one glass window. As for wanting their children to learn the language and become Americans, that’s patently untrue. They wanted to (and did) build their own little colonies. They had their own schools, teaching only in German, Swedish, etc, up until WWI. As late as the 1970s, I had elementary school classmates whose grandparents were born in this country but spoke only Polish or only Italian or only Swedish. You don’t find a child born here nowadays who only speaks Spanish.

      As for migrating legally, that’s what these people are doing. It is 100% legal to cross the US border in plain view, seek out a Border Patrol agent, and ask for help. If someone, especially a child, has a reasonable fear of being killed or harmed in their own country, and they can get here, we let them in. We did it for the East Germans, Poles, Czechs and Yugoslavians who escaped oppression at home in the 70s and 80s. We’ve done it for Cubans since the 60s. We do it for Christians from any country that doesn’t allow religious expression. We do it for Chinese who have too many babies. Now we have to do it for Hondurans and Guatemalans and Salvadorans fleeing countries that have been increasingly ungovernable since the US overthrew or helped overthrow their elected governments.

  • Matthew Reece

    There should be no immigration policy. There should be respect for
    private property rights, and all property should be private property.
    Those who enter private property without permission are trespassing and
    may be removed by whatever means are necessary.

    • Melania Gulley

      and i bet you such a good little psuedo christian your willing to shoot and kill small children..

      • Matthew Reece

        A principal sign of an inability to rebut rational arguments is the creation of emotional straw men.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am stealing that mat its brilliant.

    • AW

      Those who enter private property to request life-saving assistance are not trespassing. If a child walks up on your porch and says, “Please call the police. There are a bunch of men with guns at my house and I can’t go home,” you may not remove her by whatever means are necessary. You call the police and they take her into protective custody, then foster care.

      That’s exactly what’s happening with these unaccompanied minors. They are walking up to the border and seeking out Border Patrol agents. There’s nothing illegal about crossing the border in plain view to request help.

      • Matthew Reece

        Those who enter private property, are told to leave, and refuse to leave are trespassing. Circumstances beyond that are irrelevant.

        I will grant that someone who does this to a child in the situation you describe is an asshole, but there is a difference between an asshole and an aggressor.

  • Stephen Barlow

    I am surprised the RED Gun Nut Racists haven’t done this already.