Question: If someone sells you on
something with false advertising and it does the exact opposite of what was
promised, are you not entitled to return the product and get a refund? In
fact, if the product caused you harm, should you not in addition be compensated
for damages?
Consider that when Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was pushing the
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 (S.500) on the Senate floor,
he said,
"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants
annually."
Actually, he was right. We now absorb more than a
million immigrants annually.
Kennedy next stated, "Under the proposed bill, the present
level of immigration remains substantially the same."
The average yearly number of immigrants prior to '65 was 250,000.
Even with Common Core math, that's still less than one million-plus.
Kennedy also claimed, "Secondly, the ethnic mix of this
country will not be upset." His brother, Senator Robert Kennedy
(D-N.Y.), chimed in, "In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration
can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United
States."
Yet as the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) wrote in
2015, "[i]n 1965, whites of European descent [constituted] 84 percent of
the U.S. population, while [h]ispanics accounted for 4 percent and Asians for
less than 1 percent. Fifty years on, 62 percent of the U.S. population is
white, 18 percent is [h]ispanic, and 6 percent is Asian. By 2065, just 46
percent of the U.S. population will be white, the [h]ispanic share will rise to
24 percent, Asians will [constitute] 14 percent – and the country will be home
to 78 million foreign[-]born, according to Pew projections."
Kennedy again: "Contrary to the charges in some quarters,
S.500 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."
Since the 1965 act took effect, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants
have hailed from the Third World. Moreover, the MPI tells us,
"Compared to almost entirely European immigration under the
national-origins system [prior to '65], flows since 1965 have been more than
half Latin American and one[] quarter Asian."
Kennedy summed up, saying the charges he was refuting above were
"highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact.
They are out of line with the obligations of responsible
citizenship."
They were actually something else: true.
In fact, it's hard to imagine a short statement containing more
untruths than what the real Lyin' Ted packed into his immigration bill defense.
It's not just that he was wrong – it's that the outcomes were the precise
opposite of what he'd promised. If Kennedy had been a doctor performing a
medical procedure, he'd have been sued out of the business. If he'd been
an auto-manufacturer and his pet bill a car model, he'd have had to issue a
recall.
So can we finally recall this horrible 1965 immigration act?
Note that even Kennedy tacitly admitted that the act's ultimate outcomes
are undesirable. He didn't say, "Flooding the country with one
million people per year from economically deprived areas and radically changing
the ethnic mix of the U.S. is great. Let's do it!" He
passionately claimed that those things wouldn't happen.
By the way, Kennedy punctuated his prevaricative defense by saying
that the charges against the immigration bill "breed hate of our
heritage." Of course, the balkanization the immigration bill bred is
part of the reason our heritage is now so hated.
Speaking of hatred, much is currently directed at President Trump
because on Thursday he questioned why we have so much immigration from
impoverished nations such as Haiti, as opposed to more newcomers from Norway.
Since this raised many leftists' ire and with my being the reasonable man
I am, I propose a compromise: no immigrants from the Third World or the Old
World. In other words, no immigration, period.
With a population 330 million strong, we have enough people.
With 95 million not in the labor force and robots taking over low-skilled
jobs, we don't need more workers. With America being balkanized, we don't
need more diversity. So what does today's immigration provide?
Oh, yeah – Democrat voters.
Depending on the group, 70 to 90 percent of third-world immigrants
vote Democrat after being naturalized. Leftists don't in principle love
immigrants or immigration, but they do love electoral domination – and
importing foreigners to achieve it suits them fine.
In fact, if 70 to 90 percent of third-world immigrants voted GOP,
the Democrats would be clamoring to admit those reliably socialistic
Norwegians.
Contact Selwyn
Duke, follow him on Twitter,
or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
