The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster

https://i0.wp.com/blogs.kcrw.com/whichwayla/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1331146904_president-lyndon-b.-johnson-signing-the-immigration-and-nationality-act-of-1965.png

blogs.kcrw.com

 

FrontPageMagazine.com

By: Ben Johnson

America’s current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50’s, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924.  Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture.  In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened.  So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.

Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group’s existing presence in the population.  In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism.  Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of “racism” and “imperialism,” they found the system rhetorically embarrassing.  The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack “discrimination,” did not reveal the consequences of their convictions.  Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.

Continue reading

Tampa Bay Times: Time for Confiscation!

https://i0.wp.com/lawofficer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/EXZW_gun_control_graphic.jpg

Image via lawofficer.com

 

The Truth About Guns

by Simon Green

An unanswered question in the Florida gun debate: What to do with existing guns? That’s the scary ass headline hovering over a tampabaytimes.com article written in the aftermath of Florida’s new gun control legislation. The implication is clear: Dems don’t think it’s enough to ban “assault weapons” (which the new bill does not do). Something must be done to disarm MSR-armed civilians. No really . . .

When the Senate debated SB 7026— the gun legislation that just landed on Gov. Rick Scott’s desk — Sen. Linda Stewart, D-Orlando sponsored an amendments that would have banned the “sale or transfer” of certain assault weapons. Under the proposal, Floridians would have had until July 1, 2019, to obtain a certificate of possession or remove their assault weapon from the state.

A policy like that would pose logistical challenges, experts said.

“If all gun sales were banned tomorrow, there’d still be plenty of guns in the U.S. in 25 years,” Jay Corzine, a professor of sociology at University of Central Florida said. Corzine researches the impact of different weapon types on mass shootings. He added that such a ban would likely be subject to legal challenges.

“Once guns are out in circulation, it’s very difficult to bring them back,” said Jaclyn Schildkraut, an expert on mass shooting research and an assistant professor of public justice at the State University of New York at Oswego. She noted that many gun control measures would punish law-abiding gun owners while likely doing little to deter criminals — who commit all mass shootings — from obtaining weapons.

Thank you for that rational and realistic analysis. Precisely the kind of logic that Florida Democrats are happy to overlook. Or, worse, ignore . . .

Those factors put Florida Democrats in a tough spot. But Rodriguez said the scale of the challenge shouldn’t be an argument against addressing it. “There are all kinds of ways of dealing with the fact that, yes, these weapons are very prevalent right now,” Rodriguez said, citing programs like gun buybacks. “It’s a question of the state dedicating resources to a problem.”

Those are the most chilling words I’ve read in a long time. The article’s closing quote from Schildkraut isn’t quite as bad, but it’s bad enough.

Even if new laws aren’t the answer, Schildkraut said, “Our job in society is to make (mass shootings) more difficult, not to make (them) easier.”

As far as gun control advocates are concerned, even if gun control doesn’t work, it works! As long as it puts Americans on a slippery slope to confiscation. In case you didn’t know.