What is your opinion about this article, not taught in schools, but a reality in our immigration history?

Chief Whachusa

It it a well written article that speaks of the realities by those that live during and in the thirty some years of hate, discrimination and nonacceptance "of the people by the people."

Linda Christensen was taught immigration by school book texts, but when visiting Angel Island books what she had learned from books became vague and questionable by what past living history was about to show her. Poems scrawled on walls moved her into teaching her students the more "dangerous and unspoken immigration that denies access to large numbers of potential immigrants based on color or politics."

But some may think that is the opinion of one nothing more.

What and where is Angel Island?

"In 1905, construction of an Immigration Station began in the area known as China Cove. Surrounded by public controversy from its inception, the station was finally put into operation in 1910. Although it was billed as the "Ellis Island of the West", within the Immigration Service it was known as "The Guardian of the Western Gate" and was designed control the flow of Chinese into the country, who were officially not welcome with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
This facility was primarily a detention center. Beginning with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, a series of restrictive laws had prohibited the immigration of certain nationalities and social classes of Asians. Although all Asians were affected, the greatest impact was on the Chinese."
"The first Chinese entered California in 1848, and within a few years, thousands more came, lured by the promise of Gam Sann or "Gold Mountain". Soon, discriminatory legislation forced them out of the gold fields and into low-paying, menial jobs. They laid tracks for the Central Pacific Railroad, reclaimed swamp land in the Sacramento delta, developed shrimp and abalone fisheries, and provided cheap labor wherever there was work no other group wanted or needed.

During the 1870s, an economic downturn resulted in serious unemployment problems, and led to politically motivated outcries against Asian immigrants who would work for low wages. In reaction to states starting to pass immigration laws, in 1882 the federal government asserted its authority to control immigration and passed the first immigration law, barring lunatics and felons from entering the country. Later in 1882, the second immigration law barred Chinese, with a few narrow exceptions. Imperial China was too weak and impoverished to exert any influence on American policy. This law was originally for 10 years, but was extended and expanded and not repealed until 1943, when China was our ally in World War II. However, only 105 Chinese were allowed in legally each year, so the exception process actually continued into the 1950's. Chinese were not on a equal immigration footing with other nationalities until immigration laws were completely rewritten in the mid 1960's."
http://www.angelisland.org/immigr02.html

rlstaehle, President Roosevelt did not say that in 1907. Read here

http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/tr%20web%20book/TR_CD_to_HTML280.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/troosevelt.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_roosevelt_on_immigrants.htm

Besides IF you were being upfront with your definition of amensty one would read,

"Amnesty (from the Greek amnestia, oblivion) is a legislative or executive act by which a state restores those who may have been guilty of an offense against it to the positions of innocent persons. It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense. The word has the same root as amnesia. Amnesty is more and more used to express 'freedom' and the time when prisoners can go free."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty
See so it is from oblivion as in obliterates! It is from amnesia as in "freedom and the time when prisoners can go free"
And you are right it is a sickening irony.

Bad Wolf

Sounds about right.

Many new groups were subjected to poor treatment and discrimination. The Irish deal with it. For years there were signs hanging in the windows of businesses.."NINA"..No Irish Need Apply.

ioerr

Yeah we do, but I'm pretty sure nations necessarily have the right to decide for themselves who they want to accept as immigrants.

â™¥â™¥Cheeliciousâ™¥â™¥â™¥

As you know Asians were completely excluded until 1952. And yes our history of discrimination is shameful, regardless of how long ago it was.

"The 1952 Act created symbolic opportunities for Asian immigration, though in reality it continued to discriminate against them. The law repealed the last of the existing measures to exclude Asian immigration, allotted each Asian nation a minimum quota of 100 visas each year, and eliminated laws preventing Asians from becoming naturalized American citizens. Breaking down the "Asiatic Barred Zone" was a step toward improving U.S. relations with Asian nations. At the same time, however, the new law only allotted new Asian quotas based on race, instead of nationality. An individual with one or more Asian parent, born anywhere in the world and possessing the citizenship of any nation, would be counted under the national quota of the Asian nation of his or her ethnicity or against a generic quota for the "Asian Pacific Triangle." Low quota numbers and a uniquely racial construction for how to apply them ensured that total Asian immigration after 1952 would remain very limited."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/87719.htm

Our discriminatory actions are not just directed at immigrants, race bashing is just as bad.

Polybius

Yes, we might have the same attitude, but it's not simply a matter of "being mean." Immigration is a natural fact of the world since ancient times, and universally the encroachment upon territory by an "other" is looked upon, at best, with skeptic-optimism, or at worse with irrational hatred.
Still, what is done is done. Should we be ashamed of the past, or worry about changing attitudes today? I am very proud of the tolerance the US has achieved, even when I wonder if we are letting ourselves be tolerant to those who might do us harm.

Sabrina

My opinion is now with all the technology The people from other counties know I mean really know that it is illegal so that is why they SNEAK here. At that point in time the US needed citizens we weren't as crowded like we are now.There weren't the common known laws in place like there are now. The chinese were basically ignorant of what would happen to them until they got here. Yes it was so very wrong to lock them up in slums. But you can't compare two very different situations from two very different time eras. We do not lock the Mexicans up in slums refusing them exit. We actually deport them. And they know what they are getting into before they come but they do it anyways. Also did you see the Chinese back then applying for all the government programs burning our flag? Like I said two very different situations.

rlstaehle

No.
Edit: In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes to us in good faith becomes an American, and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. but this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but is something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

Edit: If you want to site history as a learning tool, I give you Amnesty '86. here we are 23 years later with the same problem that act was supposed to cure, 10 fold.
Let's take a look at the word "AMNESTY" From the Greek word "amnestia"- meaning "Oblivion" The word "amnesty" shares the same root as "AMNESIA"
The irony is almost sickening.

Edit: Chief, Because I used the popular date of the quote, and the literal meaning of the word "amnesty"(instead of the watered down version) does that make my point less valid?

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: