The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do With Immigration, Can We Stop Pretending it Does?
How many time have you heard from your politician, your president, or your standard Hollywood actor, that “we are a nation of immigrants.”
They next thing that follows this statement is usually some cringe-worthy cliché about the statue of liberty that’s historically inaccurate right?
It’s particularly inaccurate because the statue of liberty was a gift given to the US from France to honor the centennial of American independence. The poem, upon it, which was written by Jewish writer Emma Lazarus’ you know “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses …”—was added onto the statue 17 years after the state was erected. It was a cri-de-coeur by Lazarus about her major concern which was the Russian pogroms against Jews happening in Czarist Russia at the time.
Lazarus was asked in 1883 to contribute a manuscript to an effort by New York socialites to help raise money for the pedestal on which the statue was to be erected. She at first resisted but then ultimately decided to take the opportunity to further her real concern, which was the Russian Jews and the pogroms that were happening.
E pluribus unum explicitly commemorates the union of thirteen British colonies into one nation. The statue and the motto do not celebrate immigration; they salute the achievement of the settlers who founded those colonies and, in time, won independence from their Mother Country.
Anything else is historically inaccurate and made up by pro-open borders advocacy groups.
Now what about the term “a nation of immigrants.” Surely this phrase has been around since the statue of liberty was built at least right?
Wrong. As you can see this phrase wasn’t used until it became popular in the 1960’s. It was popularized after the ADL asked John F Kennedy to write a book with the same title that became part of a series by the ADL called the “one nation library.”
As you can see, this phrase was literally a marketing slogan created in 1963 by the ADL. The ADL is a Jewish group with 100 years of history in the US who’s current CEO called Donald Trump “antisemitic” for using the word “globalist” during one of his meetings.
The group also gave JFK the award he talked about in that clip after writing his book.
Now this phrase that you constantly hear in schools, on tv, in movies and from your politicians sparked came into mass use only 60 years ago. This was also right around the time that America’s immigration system was starting to be called “racist.” This as you know eventually led to the US going from a healthy mix of mostly western European immigrants in 1950, to a massive increase in immigration which now is pretty much only coming from Mexico.
So what changed? What law was passed that the American people had no say in? What act was signed that sent us millions of a type of immigrant that is over ¾ on one or more welfare program, that tears down our statues demanding change in our country, that hoist no other flag but of their homeland while advocating the government be overthrown, that say it’s racist to be white, and that bring mob destruction to those who advocate for a secure border, less government and the restoration as well as the protection of our constitution?
Well in comes Emmanuel Celler. One of the main creators and the driving hammer on the nail that is the Hart-Celler act of 1965. Who is he? Well his biography describes him as a Jewish American Congressman who died of pneumonia in 1981. It goes on to talk about his major role in pushing for the legislation that eventually was successful in changingwhat they call “unjust” immigration policy of America which even as recently as 1960 had strict caps of immigration coming from south of our border. Within his bio he is quoted in saying “Yes, I had fought against the unjust restriction of immigration.”
But who was the face of this bill. Who would be the one to get this through the senate after Celler crafted it? Well remember the guy who kicked off the slogan “nation of immigrants” for the ADL? Well his flesh and blood and brother Ted Kennedy was tapped for the job.
After the bill was signed into law, Ted Kennedy, the literal lady killer himself, trotted out on stage and promised the following about the bill:
‘Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, This bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge
Then another Kennedy, Robert Kennedy trotted out on stage and promised the following about the bill:
‘In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States. … Total quota immigration is now 156,782; under the proposed bill, it would rise to 164,482
Before the 1965 hart celler act, our immigration and naturalization laws were a lot more similar to immigration act that were outlined by the founders and forefathers of America. Nationality acts like the Naturalization Act of 1790 which stated that should any alien wish to become a naturalized in America, they would have to be a free white person of good character that has resided in the country for at least two years. Throughout the years of course this was amended several times. Including in 1795 where they even made it harder to become naturalized extending the minimum of 2 years to at least 5 years in the country, then in 1798 making it at least 14 years, and allowing the children of naturalized citizens to obtain birthright citizenship. All of which still kept the “free white person of good moral character” statement in the first lines of the amendments. This immigration and naturalization law stayed the same up until 5 years after the American civil war when it was changed again in 1870 to allow freed black slaves to become citizens of America. From 1870 to 1924 immigration a naturalization remained pretty much the same. As America was growing and only had around 50 to 90 million people, infrastructure needed to be built and thus immigrants from Ireland, Italy Britain, the Scandinavian countries and others started to flow in. Contrary to what you’re taught in schools, as you can see, slaves did not build this country, it’s infrastructure, its canals, its bridges or its skyskrapers. The Irish and Italians mostly did. But I digress….
This all changed in 1920, when President Warren G. Harding signed the Emergency Quota Act into law in 1921. According to the new law, annual immigration from any country cannot exceed 3 percent of the total number of U.S. immigrants from that same country, as recorded in the U.S. Census of 1910.
Then the Immigration Act of 1924 went even further, limiting total annual immigration to 165,000 and fixing quotas of immigrants from specific countries. For instance the act which some know as the Johnson Reed act, completely banned immigration of Eastern European Jews. This was due to the recent Russian revolution of 1917 which was started by Leon Trotsky (AKA Leon Bronstein) and Vladimir Lenin who were both Eastern European Jews. It was meant to keep subversives like them out along with anyone who followed the ideology of Karl Marx who was also an eastern European Jew. This act of course was only opposed by Emmanuel Celler who as you now know would change this all and immigration all together as America knew it later on. Imagine my shock.
But before Celler got his subversive disgusting hands on our immigration system, yet another immigration act would pass. This act, passed in 1952, is known as the McCarran-Walter Act. The law was hailed by supporters as a necessary step in preventing communist subversion in the United States, while opponents decried the legislation of course as being xenophobic and discriminatory. The act kept the quotas the same, and immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany were allotted two-thirds of the 154,657 spots available each year. However, the act did specifically remove previously established racial barriers that had acted to exclude immigrants from nations such as Japan and China. These countries were now assigned very small quotas. But still as you can see, keeping our immigration coming mostly from first world Europe where immigrants had an ease of assimilation. The changes that were of more concern for many critics centered on the act’s provision of much more strenuous screening of potential immigrants. It banned admission to anyone declared a subversive by the attorney general and indicated that members of communist and “communist-front” organizations were subject to deportation.
Now what would have happened if no immigration happened at all? What would have happened if there was never an ellis island or any immigration acts at all after the founding and independence of our country?
One demographic study concluded that, had there been no immigration after 1790, the settlers’ posterity alone—including African slaves’ and freemen’s descendants—would have grown by 1990 to approximately half the size of the actual population today, which implies roughly half of Americans still have roots in the founding stock whose existence the NOI creed denies.
The federal structure the Founding Fathers erected for the United States is firmly grounded in their British heritage and American experience. No surprise: they were overwhelmingly of British descent, mostly English. Those who signed the Declaration and the Constitution knew of Locke and Enlightenment philosophies but knew their native law best: the English Common Law. Common Law remains the bedrock of every state’s law today, with the unique exception of Louisiana. The rights of Englishmen were the animating spirit of the Bill of Rights, meant to secure them more effectively in America than they often were in England.
So you see America is a country of settlers and conquerors of western culture. The America they had in mind was to remain western. And regardless of what anyone tries to tell you on the tv, millions upon millions of Americans are neither immigrants nor descendants of immigrants, but rather descendants of the settlers who built and freed this country from Britain.
Can you imagine what would happen if China was in our place, allowing millions of people from south of their border into the country who according to all studies are mostly on welfare. Could you imagine what the Chinese would say or do if then said immigrants were to say that their culture is racist, everything about them is racist and that they must change to become more tolerant to the soft invaders?
Yeah. Me neither….