from wikipedia "The Immigration and Nationality Act amendments of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by Emanuel Celler and heavily supported by Senator Ted Kennedy. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "...our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset...." The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable. However, in the end, this act dramatically changed the face of American society by making it a multicultural, multiethnic nation. " do you think this time around, ted is being more honest?
I have wondered how much this piece of legislation ultimately hurt the black communities in America, just as they were progressing following the civil rights movement.
By Prof Kevin McDonald <kmacd@csulb.edu> In the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift implemented by the 1965 Act Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham in his book Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America "Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative [Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration."(pp. 56_57) In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??). But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that come to the U.S. every year-no discussion of their effect on the economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities; no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale illegal inflow is a non-subject. Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are " racist" and "nativist" . It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and intimidation via labeling, anathematizing , and ultimately loss of livelihood. Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of "not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of genetic influences on intelligence and behavior. But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.) have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and political influence of their community. In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of immigration policy, there is ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government". I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both reative immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community would strenuously resist these conclusions. Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with intellectual integrity. As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it is even more critical: America's post-1965. http://vdare.com/macdonald/070131_mideast.htm