The US Constitution is racist, and so was every Naturalization and immigration law passed before WW2

submitted by Fourth_stage from thuletide.wordpress.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Go to Wikipedia and have a look at various late 19th century lawsuits where nonwhites, such as Arabs and Indians, argued that they fall under the definition of "white" and therefore should be allowed to naturalize. And guess what? Cucked judges, instead of rightfully dismissing their obviously retarded claims, laughing them out of the courts and telling them to stick their stupid lawsuits up their asses, ruled in favor of these people and allowed them to become U.S. citizens, "confirming" that they indeed were white!

The American definition of White was also used to discriminate against Italians and Greeks so the inconsistency was there from the beginning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Ideally, the U.S would have been better off if it only made immigration a privileged position like Japan did and just focus on bringing people when it was needed, making assimilation much much easier and having greater control of its borders.

The all or nothing "who is White?" purity was always bound for disaster, especially as this was the same country that already brought in hundreds of thousands of African slaves, was constantly absorbing Native Americans populations, and bringing over the remaining worldly ethnicities as cheap labor. Like, what were they expecting to happen over the next 300 years?

Edit: Speaking of Japan, the same 1924 immigration article says the Japanese were so pissed at the new restrictions, that it actually played a major role in going to war with the U.S. Oh wow. Major screw up of the century?

https://time.com/4659392/history-fallout-restricting-immigration/

[–]Lugger 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The American definition of White was also used to discriminate against Italians and Greeks so the inconsistency was there from the beginning.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Italians, Greeks (as well as Irish) were only discriminated on a personal level; American common folk was extremely prejudiced against these people and even went as far as to refer to, for example, the Irish as "white niggers" or something like that, but legally they were always considered "white" under the U.S. law. The U.S. government never discriminated against them and never denied them citizenship on the basis of race.

The 1924 Immigration Act put restrictions on immigrants from pretty much any country except Western and Northern European ones, but it has nothing to do with discriminating/not discriminating against Southern and Eastern Europeans who were already citizens of the U.S.

Ideally, the U.S would have been better off if it only made immigration a privileged position like Japan did...

Want my opinion on the subject? The immigration to the U.S. should have been restricted to "free British people of good characters" instead of "free white people" as it was originally worded by the Founding Fathers.

Such a narrow definition would have helpled to prevent the retard judges from shoving brown people under the guise of "fellow whites" down Americans' throats and it would have vastly improved the U.S. social cohesion — don't forget that all those non-British immigrants like Germans, Italians and Irish took a lot of time to assimiliate (that's especially true of Italians, though) and were a quite a pain in the ass for the government.

The all or nothing "who is White?" purity was always bound for disaster, especially as this was the same country that already brought in millions of African slaves, was constantly absorbing Native Americans populations, and bringing over the remaining worldly ethnicities as cheap labor. Like, what were they expecting to happen over the next 300 years?

Agreed. Especially with the part I put in bold.

The Founding Fathers wanted America to be an European outpost, but the idea was executed extremely poorly, both by themselves and their successors:

  • Not deporting back to Africa the already existing black slaves (because the fat rich slave owners didn't want to get rid of their free shit!).

  • Providing the Amerindians with "rights" and "reservations" instead of rounding 'em all up and sending them down south to Mexico — which, thanks to the long-enacted decree of the Cucktholic church, viewed them as equals to Europeans and would have willingly accepted them as citizens.

  • Importing hordes of Chinese to work the railroads for a bowl of rice.

  • Conquering the Mexican land and allowing the Mexican population to stay.

et cetera

Greed, inability to deal with long-term consequences and plain stupidity triumphed over ingridients of a stable cohesive nation. Sad!

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong but Italians, Greeks (as well as Irish) were only discriminated on a personal level; American common folk was extremely prejudiced against these people and even went as far as to refer to, for example, the Irish as "white niggers" or something like that, but legally they were always considered "white" under the U.S. law. The U.S. government never discriminated against them and never denied them citizenship on the basis of race. The 1924 Immigration Act put restrictions on immigrants from pretty much any country except Western and Northern European ones, but it has nothing to do with discriminating/not discriminating against Southern and Eastern Europeans who were already citizens of the U.S.

It was what the law said about them. The U.S was restricting people under stereotypes of who was a good person. So they may have been "legally" white but socially, they were looked upon as second class. There was also the Eugenics society running around in the same era who were also pushing ideas of who was good and bad using "genes" arguments.

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe.[48][49] The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[50] Whereas Anglo-Saxon and Nordic people were seen as the most desirable immigrants, the Chinese and Japanese were seen as the least desirable and were largely banned from entering the U.S as a result of the immigration act.[50][51] In addition to the immigration act, eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Immigration_restrictions

So yeah, a lot of hatred and purity tests were happening in America, despite modern science offering much better answers compared to the quackery back then.

[–]Nasser 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Edit: Speaking of Japan, the same 1924 immigration article says the Japanese were so pissed at the new restrictions, that it actually played a major role in going to war with the U.S. Oh wow. Major screw up of the century?"

How is that a screw up? Japan had zero chance of ever beating the US and in the end the US gained a 2 new vassal states and massive influence over the East Asian world.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Perhaps they could have avoided war or lessen the vicious impact that came with dealing their future enemy?

For example, the Japanese feeling insulted by the U.S immigration laws may have pushed them to treat U.S POW's as inferior and undeserving of humane treatment. This was definitely the case with war crimes like the Bataan Death March, where Americans where barely regarded as human.

Gaining a new vassal state still came at the tremendous loss of Allied lives. Many of whom never even got to see the results of this product.

[–]Nasser 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guarantee Japan would have the done the exact shit immigration policy or not.

[–]Dialgatime321 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sicilians aren't white. Arguably, America was a mistake to begin with-people existing outside their racial homelands created a BAD precedent.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

America was a mistake to begin with-people existing outside their racial homelands created a BAD precedent.

I actually agree with this. Hell, any colonization that took White people and moved them to non-white areas was always a bad idea. Unfortunately, it's a mistake we all have to live with now since boycotting the USA isn't possible, unless you're ok with giving up your smartphone or Windows OS.