29 April, 2009
Hate Bill Vote on Wednesday
Posted by Socrates in 'hate', 'hate' laws, Socrates, Ted Pike at 2:30 am | 
Permanent Link
Posted by Socrates in 'hate', 'hate' laws, Socrates, Ted Pike at 2:30 am |
Permanent Link
Similar posts:
- 10/06/08 International Hate Laws Bite Down 148% similar
- 06/11/08 PIKE: Hate Crimes Hypocrisy in D.C. 148% similar
- 05/01/08 PIKE: Christian Teen Arrested for “Hate Crime” 148% similar
- 07/08/08 PIKE: ‘Hate Criminals’ – With No Law Broken! 148% similar
- 02/19/09 Hate Bills Move Forward in House Judiciary 148% similar
63 Responses to “Hate Bill Vote on Wednesday”
29 April, 2009 at 8:32 am
Once again Italian & Irish Roman Catholic political leadership is pushing the jew agenda, or is it the catholic agenda? Hard to tell who is worse again. The jews or the catholics.
29 April, 2009 at 9:03 am
The Catholic Church is built on Peter (large p), “the Rock.” Peter, Jewsus, and the rest of them were jews. So add “Christian” or “Catholic” to the list of masks the jew wears.
The time has come to get rid of the jews. All of them.
29 April, 2009 at 9:25 am
Get real guys. Christianity is a dead force in the West.
Heck, the most Jewed nation in the World, the USA, was founded as a Judeo-Masonic entity.
Do you not stop to consider these things?
Regarding the bill itself, Obongo has already stated how strongly he feels about “hate” based on “Holocaust denial” and “sexism”. It will have his firm support, and that means something.
Think the “free speech on paper” in your Freemason’s Constitution will save you? Think again.
29 April, 2009 at 9:26 am
I urge all those “holier-than-thou” anti-Christian WNs to stop idealising Masonic scraps of paper.
29 April, 2009 at 9:40 am
Regardless of what you think, or wish was true, the fact is that the Roman Catholic leader of Congress, the Speaker of the House, Italian Roman Catholic Nancy Pelosi is pushing this bill HR 1913, and pushing it hard.
This may not effect the Roman Catholic clergy because of their high percentage of homosexuals, pedophiles etc. etc. But, it will hurt the straight White Protestant clergy who speak out against perverts.
When straight White Protestant men ran Congress & America we never had these kinds of problems or laws. Its only been since the rise of the catholics & jews in politics have we had these problems & laws.
HR 1913 is expected to pass today.
29 April, 2009 at 9:50 am
Yay, more jewy Orwellianism! I wouldn’t be suprised if, sometime in the next decade, we see a bill aiming to make fellatio and cunnilingus lessons a mandatory part of every kindergartener’s curriculum. “Oh well,” the country will say, “what’s on TV?”
29 April, 2009 at 9:59 am
This hate bill will also prosecute anyone who refutes the holocaust, causing American citizens to be imprisoned. Another bill to strengthened jews’ supremacy.
I disagree the Constitution was founded on chaotic, mentally ill Masonics and the Constitution was constructed to put forth filth and chaos into America. Your interpretation of Freemasons needs to be reevaluated into true terms.
The Masons were a group of individuals who were builders. There were the architects who were the basis of building a better country/society. The Freemasons are a secret club formed in the 1600′s in England who are individuals seeking control and dominance through greed, money, and usury laying laws that disrupt the society no matter if the laws are contradictory than the laws passed by our forefathers. Their intentions is to create chaos and destruction upon a society. They are the psychopaths or jews/Zionists whose only concern is to swindle the host nation while making themselves rich. Our forefathers were not made of this low caliber. In fact, their intention was to prevent these destructive invaders from invading the U.S. They wanted a White nation with no non-White immigrants or mentally ill crypto-jews destroying America.
29 April, 2009 at 10:30 am
“This hate bill will also prosecute anyone who refutes the holocaust, causing American citizens to be imprisoned. Another bill to strengthened jews’ supremacy.”
Most of the posters, here, better hope that the law doesn’t become retroactive…
29 April, 2009 at 10:42 am
Old Dutch Dyke
Please show US some lineage of her parents.
Even though the Shell of the Catholic church does not serve Western survial at all, you are full of it.
29 April, 2009 at 11:08 am
“Most of the posters, here, better hope that the law doesn’t become retroactive…”
Even if it becomes retroactive, this will be a good excuse to rid of all jewish organizations. :)
29 April, 2009 at 11:54 am
Howdy—Tell it to your priest. Thinking “bad” thoughts is a big deal for you catholics. Now you catholics want to prosecute us Protestants for thinking “bad” thoughts.
Call up your local Roman Catholic Cardinal or Bishop and see what he says about Italian Roman Catholic Pelosi & HR 1913. LOL. She has their full support.
29 April, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Well I’m not that familiar with American politicos but isn’t Pelosi actively pro-abortion and active in encouraging fag and lesbo dominance?? If so, she isn’t and can’t be a Catholic in good standing. In fact a few years ago she would be excommunicated for going against church teaching on an important moral issue.
PS until mentioned on the forum I automatically thought Pelosi was a jew.
29 April, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“Regardless of what you think, or wish was true, the fact is that the Roman Catholic leader of Congress, the Speaker of the House, Italian Roman Catholic Nancy Pelosi is pushing this bill HR 1913, and pushing it hard.”
Oh puh-leez. Pelosi is a feminist and a progressiveness. She doesn’t correspond to Christian or even traditional Catholic thinking.
You’ll use anything to justify your anti-Christianity.
29 April, 2009 at 1:40 pm
** and a progressivist
29 April, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Wiki/Nancy Pelosi:
“Pelosi supports the legality of abortion. She voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and earlier attempts at similar bans. She voted in favor of the 1998 Abortion Funding Amendment, which allowed the use of district funds to promote abortion-related activities. She voted against a Congressional resolution supporting the display of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms.
Pelosi received a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign for the 107th,108th, and 109th sessions of Congress, indicating that she voted in agreement with HRC’s slate of pro-gay legislative issues. In 1996 she voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. She voiced her opposition to Proposition 8, the successful ballot initiative, which sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the state.”
Do you make [i]any[/i] attempt to back up your spurious claims, no?
29 April, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Coup d’Etat:
When I refer to the Masons I am using that as an abbreviation for the Freemasons, who you correctly identified as degenerate filth.
“[The Founding Fathers] were not made of this low caliber.”
They obviously were because they were Freemasons.
29 April, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Pelosi is the Roman Catholic leader of Congress, the Speaker of the House. If you have different information you should let us know. LOL. It’s not what you want to be true—it’s what is true.
The catholics & jews have the same agenda. This HR 1913 is only one part of it.
Why do you think these Irish & Italian Roman Catholic politicians likie Pelosi & Kennedy are pushing so hard for open borders & amnesty for illegal aliens. Could it be more catholic votes from the tan catholic everyman of Mexico and further South?
29 April, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I have to agree with old_dutch on this one, although keep in mind that Pelosi is most likely a Marrano Jew.
29 April, 2009 at 2:25 pm
What you refer to the “Catholic agenda” is really the Progressivist, Liberal, Jew agenda. They are the real fundamentals.
You have a lot of nominal Catholics and Christians nowadays, especially in political circles.
ZOG mentioned that Pelosi is likely a Marrano Jew. Remember that a Jew’s first allegience is to the tribe, not their superimposed Catholicism, or whatever.
But no need to consider these things, eh, Old Dutch Dyke?
“Could it be more catholic votes from the tan catholic everyman of Mexico and further South?”
Immigrants are automatic liberal voters, not Catholic voters.
29 April, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Pelosi is your catholic political leader in Congress—that’s the reality! All sources list her as an Italian Roman Catholic. As I said before call your local Cardinal, or Bishop and ask him about Pelosi & HR 1913. I’m sure your local catholic leader agrees with Pelosi—no Roman Catholic Bishop or Cardinal has spoken out against HR 1913. Why would, or should they consider opposing HR 1913. They will be a protected minority as a homosexual, or pedophile etc. etc.
29 April, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The jews may set the agenda, provide the money, the media, but the Roman Catholic politicians provide the millions of Mexicans, Italians & Irish as troops for the jews. One only has to look to California to see that reality.
29 April, 2009 at 3:03 pm
“They obviously were because they were Freemasons.”
This is what the jews want you to believe. They were not the Freemasons like the jews have confused them to be.
29 April, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Some interesting postings. The Italian and Irish professional liberal politicians probably knowingly support the jew agenda, BUT I can’t believe the vast majority of working class Italian and Irish willingly support policies that are inimical to their own interests.
Do they really support policies that are designed to ruin their communities and family life? Are they eager to join the ranks of the unemployed and compete with Mexican labor? I don’t think so.
Here in the jewK we generally associate Irish and Italian Americans as being ‘Archie Bunker’ types.
29 April, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Are you the type of WN that urges Whites to give up their faith in the “Jew on a stick” and Christianity?
Give up your faith in the Freemason Founders. Just let it go. It’s not that hard.
The Universalist/Progressive ideals of the Founders stretch quite far.
Most WNs do not want to consider this; going as far as negating their Freemasonry, and sympathy for Universalism, Progressivism, Liberalism.
29 April, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Above addressed to Coup d’Etat.
29 April, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Universalism?
“Naturalization is the process by which people can become citizens of a country they were not born in. The United States Constitution grants Congress the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article I, section 8, clause 4). Soon after the Constitution was ratified Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103). The act provided
that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States….
This act reveals one of the deepest ambiguities in American citizenship. In requiring a period of residence prior to naturalization, members of Congress emphasized that foreigners should spend sufficient time in the United States to appreciate American democracy; Congress viewed America as a school for equality and democracy. But by preventing foreign-born people of color from becoming citizens, the act established that American citizenship contained its own aristocracy, that of race.”
http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/naturalization-act
29 April, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Your logic sequence continues to be well sub-standard by the way, Old Dutch.
29 April, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The reactionary patriotards venerate The Constitution as if it were written by some divine agency. Truth is, the Founding Fathers were multi-millionaire lawyers and land-owning patricians who cared not a whit for the common White working man. That document was designed to keep their kind perpetually in power and it’s worked quite well for them so far. How absurd it is to hear the patriotards say that we need to “take this country back”, as if we ever owned it in the first place.
29 April, 2009 at 4:07 pm
The Catholic Church is interested in filling its emptying pews and revenue.
29 April, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I wonder if something will be done to resist the passage of this bill. Hopefully Rev. Pike will put a stake through its heart.
It is useless to call my Representative. He already opposes it. And does Pelosi care what I think?
Keep pushing, jews. Keep pushing until itz revolution time.
We can’t discuss that, but we can certainly think about it.
29 April, 2009 at 4:18 pm
You got it Parsifal. The Patriotards double up their idiocy in their claims about Catholic control of the US system.
29 April, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“The Catholic Church is interested in filling its emptying pews and revenue.”
The Catholic Church and Christianity are essentially conservative. Remember what the Jew pornographer Al Goldstein said:
“We hate Christ because we have authoritarianism.”
The essential conservatism [I say conservative in the sense of traditional morality and authoritarianism] of Christianity does not lend it towards open-borders and anti-hate speech measures.
Liberalism, progressivism and Jewry on the other hand…
29 April, 2009 at 4:24 pm
** because we hate authoritarianism
29 April, 2009 at 6:57 pm
This Bill has passed the House and it’s easy to see why. This thread is a clear example of how we’re being defeated.
While the jew is organized and dedicated to his cause, White Nationals are divided, constantly chasing spurious bogeymen that may or may not even be an enemy. “It’s the Catholics”. “No, it’s the Protestants”. “No, it’s the Freemasons”. “No, it’s the founding Fathers”….as the jew laughs and laughs and laughs.
There is only one enemy: the jew. It doesn’t matter what a person calls themself, if they act like a jew and do the will of the jew, then they are a jew. Anything else is a distraction and self-defeating.
29 April, 2009 at 9:40 pm
When we had straight White Protestant men running our government and our country we didn’t have bills like HR 1913. Now with jews and catholics running the country HR 1913 is what you get.
30 April, 2009 at 12:28 am
Irish Catholic Ted Kennedy just introduced a version of the hate crimes bill into the Senate, which will be voted on shortly.
30 April, 2009 at 4:25 am
Well said GD.
30 April, 2009 at 4:25 am
Christian-hater WNs can’t differentiate between nominal Catholics and actual Catholics.
Nor do they recognise that the US system is fundmentally Liberal. As the core of the system is Liberal, things will generally move forward in that direction regardless of personalities.
30 April, 2009 at 4:26 am
“When we had straight White Protestant men running our government and our country we didn’t have bills like HR 1913. Now with jews and catholics running the country HR 1913 is what you get.”
As I said Freemasons wrote the Constitution and effectively founded the country, so your premise is bull.
The great Protestant non-Jewed non-Catholic golden era in the United States’ history does not exist.
Not in any real, ideological sense.
30 April, 2009 at 4:31 am
Actually I take that back, the Founders were markedly anti-Catholic.
The point is the situation is no different now than at the founding of the nation.
30 April, 2009 at 4:33 am
“While the jew is organized and dedicated to his cause, White Nationals are divided, constantly chasing spurious bogeymen that may or may not even be an enemy. “It’s the Catholics”. “No, it’s the Protestants”. “No, it’s the Freemasons”. “No, it’s the founding Fathers”….as the jew laughs and laughs and laughs.”
No the real problem is Democracy, Liberalism, Progressivism.
They are all avenues for Jew legislation such as this.
The system of Government in the US was always bound to have this end. We need explicitly pro-White modes of Government, not ambiguous Freemasonic systems where ultimately the Jew controlled the strings.
30 April, 2009 at 6:44 am
“Actually I take that back, the Founders were markedly anti-Catholic.”
You got that right. LOL.
30 April, 2009 at 7:49 am
Sure did.
And nothing has changed in their USA.
30 April, 2009 at 8:18 am
Jew tracer are you tracing you jew heritage? LOL.
30 April, 2009 at 11:44 am
Z.O.G. Says: “Irish Catholic Ted Kennedy just introduced a version of the hate crimes bill into the Senate, which will be voted on shortly.”
a) A multi-millionaire socialist like Ted Kennedy who has never worked a day in his life is hardly a typical “Irish Catholic” — certainly not like any that I have ever known. There’s even a good question as to just how Catholic he really is. If even at all! (when you come down to it). The Kennedy’s are basically self-serving opportunists — always have been — who are far more dedicated to the Kennedy clan than to Catholicism or to anything else beyond themselves.
As JT said, and I agree: Some “Christian-hater WNs can’t differentiate between nominal Catholics and actual Catholics.”
b) I’ve searched but can’t find much recent info on this “Hate Crimes Bill” other than what comes from the “Rev.” Ted Pike. This issue seems to be “his” personal project. Unfortunately, “Rev” Pike impresses me as something of a nut job whose dire pronouncements are not to be taken too seriously — an extremist wacko not too different from other “revs.” like Sharpton, Farrakhan, et al. The main difference being that Pike is white, but that’s not enough to make me listen to him. Just because some hysterical nut is screeching that the sky is falling or the world is ending doesn’t mean it’s happening. So, as far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out. Admittedly, the situation doesn’t look good, but I’m waiting for a more sober voice to analyze it. And I’m STILL waiting.
c) I do wish this Catholic/Protestant stuff would stop! It’s so outdated! Some of it is centuries old. It’s so distracting from the major issues. And the ethnic insults! Why are they allowed? Utimately, it’s all irrelevant … because, given our present conditions, it’s like fools arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic. I refuse to join their silly squabble.
Some people on sites like this spend 4/5 of their energy attacking each other. One has to wonder why. While I have my own religious views too, I will not drag them in here. I don’t feel this is the place for it. Attacks on others’ religion (or national background) serve only to offend and to drive others away. That is not my purpose. (I wish I could speak for others, but obviously I can’t!!! I am left wondering what is their their purpose.)
d) As GD (very perceptively) said:
“This thread is a clear example of how we’re being defeated. While the jew is organized and dedicated to his cause, White Nationals are divided, constantly chasing spurious bogeymen that may or may not even be an enemy. “It’s the Catholics”. “No, it’s the Protestants”. …as the jew laughs.”
Thank you, GD! Yes, there is only one enemy. Let’s concentrate on that one and not be diverted.
30 April, 2009 at 1:01 pm
You’re right, Herr Ein, this “Reverend” Pike is a Johnny One-Note with his never-ending crusade against the elusive “Hate Crimes Bill”. So what, let the bastards pass it already. The present System can’t be salvaged anyway. Let them pass ten thousand new hate-crime laws, it will just make the whole rotten System fall that much faster.
30 April, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Parsifal Says:
You’re right, Herr Ein, this “Reverend” Pike is a Johnny One-Note with his never-ending crusade against the elusive “Hate Crimes Bill”.
——————–
Reading the kind of stuff coming from religious loonies like “Reverend” Pike is almost enough to make me in favor of the “Hate Crimes Bill”. (If the crazies are against it, then it must be something sensible!)
It makes you wonder whose side he’s actually serving. Is he really that nutty? With “friends” like this, we don’t need enemies!
At any rate, I don’t care what he says. His opinions don’t interest me. In fact, they turn me off.
30 April, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Some exellent points gentlemen(and ladies),religion is a losing argument between ourselves as at the present rate of termination through the various programs ZOG has implemented,we won’t be around to argue the finer points in 250-300 years.The Hate crimes and Speech Crimes laws are simply mirroring what the jews(bolsheviks) did in Russia.Anybody who was an “anti-semite” was shipped off to the Gulag to die of forced labor,malnutrition and cold and disease,just like the Germans did to the jews.Only the Soviets(jews) were much better at hiding their extermination of millions of Christian Russians.
The jews here CAN”T WAIT to lock up “dissenters” and “thought criminals” for challenging the Zionist Power Matrix.Christian Pastors and Reverends will soon be geeting the appropriate “warnings from the ADL,FBI,ACLU,Concerned Homos” and all others who might be “criticized” or have “hurt feelings”.Anyone who opposes the jews teaching your son or daughter the “joys” of “same-sex relationships” will be a “thought criminal” and labeled a “potential Terrorist”.There is a suppression of Freedom of Thought and Speech coming to this country like i never previously believed possible.Its possible now,with complete Communist/Liberal/Jewish Control of “our” gov’t apparatus.The “Apparatchiks” have a rail car and momentarily unoccupied FEMA Camps for you “free thinkers” out there,who don’t accept the New Nigger Messiah you’ve been given.
Ammo is still flying off the shelves(when you can get it) and the Zionist plan for the Destruction of “White America” moves nicely along with the help of Kommissars Kennedy and Pelosi and other boot-licking lackeys.We are dis-united and we have 2 choices at this point-Unify,Separate and Survive-or Apathy,Multicultural Mixing and Die.Its not too late,in my opinion,but its getting God-Damned Close.Wake Up or Die White Man.We’ll find out who’s right about religion when we die.In the meantime lets work together,set our differences aside,and work to save a future for ourselves,our children,our grandchildren and our Race.14 Words.
30 April, 2009 at 9:39 pm
You all know that old_douche, aka old_dutch, is a troll. Ignore the stupid puke.
30 April, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I know you’re in Ohio, old_dutch.
Just a matter of time.
1 May, 2009 at 1:01 am
shabbos s shabazz & JewTracer:
Shabbos, you are right that this country by what you post was intended for Whites and for Whites only and that comes from the 1790 Constitution Immigration Act.
JewTracer, if the founders were Freemasons and this country is based on liberal construct, the verbiage Asians shall not be U.S. citizens, and the verbiage that only Whites are to be U.S. citizens would not exist in the 1790 Constitution Immigration Act. These statements are absolute and cannot be contradicted and be legal. You are seriously mistaken how my country was formed and who formed it and who it was formed for. I know this is hard for jews to accept since technically jews cannot be U.S. citizens according to the 1790 law. Jews are technically invaders and illegal aliens. Are you an invader? Funny how you spinned this around and state the founders were filth after I posted they wanted America to be White only.
1 May, 2009 at 4:28 am
Red Skull, your comments are equally applicable to the dire situation here in Europe, where we haven’t even got freedom of speech.
I’m not sure what will happen first, economic melt-down or soviet style clamp-down. Either way we must make preparations for ‘Der Tag’.
Arguing about religion, whether Catholics or Protestants are right or wrong, is completely pointless. Jews and their globalists friends won’t take religion into consideration when they are unloading the cattle wagons on a snowy Kansas field.
BTW, whatever religion, or none, that the multimillionaire Kennedy clan claim to profess is also a distraction. That bunch of champaigne-socialists wouldn’t piss on a white working man if he was on fire.
1 May, 2009 at 10:12 am
“Funny how you spinned this around and state the founders were filth after I posted they wanted America to be White only.”
Really. Isn’t it funny that the founders were so opposed to immigrants and Jews that they never bothered to include any discriminatory provisions in the Constitution itself?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Even if some early legal documents were anti-immigration and/or anti-Jew that does not matter, because those positions did not come from the spirit of the Nation as embodied by the Founders and the Constitution.
You cannot posthumously read the Founders minds. It is idiocy to assume for sure that they wanted, in perpetuity, a White-only nation. We can only go by their documents and testiments: which were firmly Progressive and Liberal.
1 May, 2009 at 10:16 am
The Freemasonic Liberal entity that is the USA now and always ultimately does not matter. It should not be hard to let it go.
What ultimately matters is the survival of our race, in North American lands and elsewhere.
1 May, 2009 at 10:30 am
Timeline
Key Dates and Landmarks in United States Immigration History 1789 The Constitution of the United States of America takes effect, succeeding the Articles of Confederation that had governed the union of states since the conclusion of the Revolutionary War (March 4, 1789).
1790 The Naturalization Act of 1790 establishes a uniform rule of naturalization and a two-year residency requirement for aliens who are “free white persons” of “good moral character” (March 26, 1790).
1795 The Naturalization Act of 1795 restricts citizenship to “free white persons” who have lived in the country for five years and renounced allegiance to their former countries (January 29, 1795).
1798 Considered one of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Naturalization Act of 1798 permits Federalist President John Adams to deport foreigners deemed to be dangerous and increases the residency requirements to 14 years to prevent immigrants, who predominantly voted for the Republican Party, from becoming citizens (June 25, 1798).
1802 The Jefferson Administration revises the Naturalization Act of 1798 by reducing the residency requirement from 14 to five years.
1808 Importation of slaves into the United States is officially banned, though it continues illegally long after the ban.
1819 Congress passes an act requiring shipmasters to deliver a manifest enumerating all aliens transported for immigration. The Secretary of State is required to report annually to Congress the number of immigrants admitted.
1821-1830 143,439 immigrants arrive.
1831-1840 599,125 immigrants arrive.
1840s Crop failures in Germany, social turbulence triggered by the rapid industrialization of European society, political unrest in Europe, and the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1851) lead to a new period of mass immigration to the United States.
1841-1850 1,713,251 immigrants arrive.
1848 The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ends the Mexican-American War and extends citizenship to the approximately 80,000 Mexicans living in Texas, California, and the American Southwest.
1848 Gold is discovered in the American River, near Sacramento, California.
1849 The California gold rush spurs immigration from China and extensive internal migration.
1850 For the first time, the United States Census surveys the “nativity” of citizens (born inside or outside the US).
1851-1860 2,598,214 immigrants arrive.
1854 The Know-Nothings, a nativist political party seeking to increase restrictions on immigration, win significant victories in Congress, a sign of popular dissatisfaction with growing immigration from Catholic Ireland. Protestant Americans feared that growing Catholic immigration would place American society under control of the Pope.
1855 Castle Garden is established as New York’s principal point of entry.
1861-1870 2,314,825 immigrants arrive.
1861 Outbreak of the American Civil War (April 12, 1861).
1862 The Homestead Act provides free plots of up to 160 acres of western land to settlers who agree to develop and live on it for at least five years, thereby spurring an influx of immigrants from overpopulated countries in Europe seeking land of their own.
1862 The “Anti-Coolie” Act discourages Chinese immigration to California and institutes special taxes on employers who hire Chinese workers.
1863 Riots against the draft in New York City involve many immigrants opposed to compulsory military service (July 13-16, 1863).
1863 The Central Pacific hires Chinese laborers and the Union Pacific hires Irish laborers to construct the first transcontinental railroad, which would stretch from San Francisco to Omaha, allowing continuous travel by rail from coast to coast.
1869 The First Transcontinental Railroad is completed when the Central Pacific and Union Pacific lines meet at Promontory Summit, Utah (May 10, 1869).
1870 The Naturalization Act of 1870 expands citizenship to both whites and African-Americans, though Asians are still excluded.
1870 The Fifteenth Amendment is ratified, granting voting rights to citizens, regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
1870 Jacob Riis, who later pioneered photojournalism and authored How the Other Half Lives, emigrates from Denmark to the United States.
1871-1880 2,812,191 immigrants arrive.
1881-1890 5,246,613 immigrants arrive.
1881-1885 1 million Germans arrive in the peak of German immigration.
1881-1920 2 million Eastern European Jews immigrate to the United States.
1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act restricts all Chinese immigration to the United States for a period of ten years.
1882 The Immigration Act of 1882 levies a tax of 50 cents on all immigrants landing at US ports and makes several categories of immigrants ineligible for citizenship, including “lunatics” and people likely to become public charges.
1885 The Alien Contract Labor Law prohibits any company or individual from bringing foreigners into the United States under contract to perform labor. The only exceptions are those immigrants brought to perform domestic service and skilled workmen needed to help establish a new trade or industry in the US.
1886 The Statue of Liberty is dedicated in New York Harbor.
1886 Emma Goldman, Lithuanian-born feminist, immigrates to the United States, where over the next 30 years she will become a prominent American anarchist. During the First World War, in 1917, she is deported to Russia for conspiring to obstruct the draft.
1889 Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr found Hull-House in Chicago.
1890 The demographic trends in immigration to the United States shift as immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe substantially increases, while the relative proportion of immigration from Northern and Western Europe begins to decrease.
1891-1900 3,687,564 immigrants arrive.
1891 Congress makes “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease,” those convicted of a “misdemeanor involving moral turpitude,” and polygamists ineligible for immigration. Congress also establishes the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department.
1892 The Geary Act extends the Chinese Exclusion Act for ten more years, and adds the requirement that all Chinese residents carry permits, as well as excluding them from serving as witnesses in court and from bail in habeus corpus proceedings.
1892 Ellis Island, the location at which more than 16 million immigrants would be processed, opens in New York City.
1901-1910 8,795,386 immigrants arrive.
1901 After President William McKinley is shot by a Polish anarchist (September 6, 1901) and dies a week later (September 14, 1901), Congress enacts the Anarchist Exclusion Act, which prohibits the entry into the US of people judged to be anarchists and political extremists.
1902 The Chinese Exclusion Act is again renewed, with no ending date.
1906 The Naturalization Act of 1906 standardizes naturalization procedures, makes some knowledge of the English language a requirement for citizenship, and establishes the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization in the Commerce Department to oversee national immigration policy.
1907 The Expatriation Act declares that an American woman who marries a foreign national loses her citizenship.
1907 Under an informal “Gentlemen’s Agreement,” the United States agrees not to restrict Japanese immigration in exchange for Japan’s promise to voluntarily restrict Japanese emigration to the United States by not issuing passports to Japanese laborers. In return, the US promises to crack down on discrimination against Japanese-Americans, most of whom live in California.
1907 The Dillingham Commission is established by Congress to investigate the effects of immigration on the United States.
1910-1920 2 million Italians arrive in the peak of Italian immigration.
1911-1920 5,735,811 immigrants arrive.
1911 The Dillingham Commission, established in 1907, publishes a 42-volume report warning that the “new” immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe threatens to subvert American society. The Dillingham Commission’s recommendations lay the foundation for the Quota Acts of the 1920s.
1913 California’s Alien Land Law prohibits “aliens ineligible for citizenship” (Chinese and Japanese) from owning property in the state, providing a model for similar anti-Asian laws in other states.
1917 Congress enacts a literacy requirement for immigrants by overriding President Woodrow Wilson’s veto. The law requires immigrants to be able to read 40 words in some language and bans immigration from Asia, except for Japan and the Philippines.
1917 The US enters the First World War.
1917 The Immigration Act of 1917 restricts immigration from Asia by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone.”
1917 The Jones-Shafroth Act grants US citizenship to Puerto Ricans, provided that they can be recruited by the US military.
1919 The First Red Scare leads to an outbreak of fear and violence against people deemed to be political radicals and foreigners considered to be susceptible to communist propaganda and more likely to be involved in the Bolshevik Revolution.
1921-1930 4,107,209 immigrants arrive.
1921 The Emergency Quota Act restricts immigration from a given country to 3% of the number of people from that country living in the US in 1910.
1922 The Cable Act partially repeals the Expatriation Act, but declares that an American woman who marries an Asian still loses her citizenship.
1923 In the landmark case of United States v. Bhaghat Singh Thind, the Supreme Court rules that Indians from the Asian subcontinent cannot become US citizens.
1924 The Immigration Act of 1924 limits annual European immigration to 2% of the number of people from that country living in the United States in 1890. The Act greatly reduces immigration from Southern and Eastern European nationalities that had only small populations in the US in 1890.
1924 The Oriental Exclusion Act prohibits most immigration from Asia, including foreign-born wives and the children of American citizens of Chinese ancestry.
1924 The Border Patrol is created to combat smuggling and illegal immigration.
1929 The National Origins Formula institutes a quota that caps national immigration at 150,000 and completely bars Asian immigration, though immigration from the Western Hemisphere is still permitted.
1931-1940 532,431 immigrants arrive.
1933 To escape persecution by the Nazis, Albert Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist of the century, immigrates to the United States from Germany.
1934 The Tydings-McDuffe Act grants the Philippines independence from the United States on July 4, 1946, but strips Filipinos of US citizenship and severely restricts Filipino immigration to the United States.
1940 The Alien Registration Act requires the registration and fingerprinting of all aliens in the United States over the age of 14.
Sources
Digital History: Ethnic Voices
Lemay, US Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History, 1999.
Smith, Overview of INS History.
Calavita, US Immigration Law and the Control of Labor: 1820-1924. 1984.
1 May, 2009 at 10:34 am
Good job on the copy-and-paste, shabbos s shabazz.
The spirit of the Nation was Liberal, Progressive and Pro-Immigration; including but not limited to Non-White Immigration.
1 May, 2009 at 10:35 am
** including but not limited to White Immigration
2 May, 2009 at 2:06 am
1917 The Jones-Shafroth Act grants US citizenship to Puerto Ricans, provided that they can be recruited by the US military.
I had not known about the last half of this sentence. Interesting. And typical. This is just one example of how EVERY war we have gotten involved in has resulted in our government making more concessions to minorities and reducing the restrictions ever further, in order to ensure loyalty, obtain cooperation, get more draftable material, etc. Our more recent wars (in the past half century) have also resulted in a flood of war brides, refugees, displaced persons, and asylum seekers, all pouring in with virtually guaranteed admission. Not to mention the illegitimate offspring conceived by US soldiers abroad.
My point is that every war we’ve been in has had a destructive demographic effect on the majority US population, further diluting and weakening it. War has also (especially since WW2) resulted in a general militarization of American society and culture. War movies and novels, soldiers, military life, became popular subjects, as they never were before. Military lingo invaded the language. In the 40s, virtually all Hollywood was in uniform or serving in some capacity. Nobody objected because this was “the good war” and everything about it was above criticism. After that, nothing was ever the same again. Movies and programs such as MASH and “I Dream of Jeanie” would not have existed before WW2 [forget the technology]. After the war, they were acceptable, even normal. Military themes and military families had become a common part of American society. Their presence henceforth was unquestioned. We became – and remained – a militarized society, far more so that we realized, as it has become so accustomed.
But again, aside from militarism’s deleterious effects on American culture, war’s worst effect on us was always demographic. With every war, our gates have opened wider, our barriers have fallen lower. I have never been particularly pacificist or anti-war myself, but just observing these inescapable facts forced me to realize that virtually ALL of our wars have been bad for us — although they have certainly been good for the profiteers who’ve grown rich on them. In short, it seems that all of our wars (with other powers, that is), probably since 1813, have been more destructive and harmful than not. From that assessment I would exclude our Indian “wars”, which I would consider more as “conflicts” than [international] wars in any traditional sense.
2 May, 2009 at 6:22 pm
The only potentially good war the US ever fought was against Mexico in 1846. But the US didn’t kick out all the Indians and Mestizoes from its new territories after the war like it should have. President Polk should have ordered all of those Greasers and Injuns to be removed south of the Rio Grande when he had the chance. The US could have even purchased Baja California from Mexico in 1848, but Congress didn’t want to spend a few extra million for it.
Herr Ein is correct about the militaristic orientation of American pop-culture. I really hated all that anti-Russian propaganda coming out of Hollywood in the 80s. I didn’t see it as a crusade against Communism, but rather a Jewish attempt to stir up hatred between two White nations. I used to hear a lot of young White guys back then talk about how they wanted to “nuke” Russia and then “nuke” Iran. But there was never any talk about wanting to “nuke” Israel, a country that deliberately attacked an unarmed US Navy vesssel and killed 134 American sailors.
2 May, 2009 at 10:05 pm
I really hated all that anti-Russian propaganda coming out of Hollywood in the 80s. I didn’t see it as a crusade against Communism, but rather a Jewish attempt to stir up hatred between two White nations.
As they’ve done so many times before!
I used to hear a lot of young White guys back then talk about how they wanted to “nuke” Russia.
Yes. Exactly. So did I.
They were all hot and keyed up to go over and bomb Russia. They didn’t know exactly why. It was just an evil place that deserved bombing.
(After all, Soviet Jews were being persecuted, were they not?)
2 May, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Ein Says:
2 May, 2009 at 2:06 am
1917 The Jones-Shafroth Act grants US citizenship to Puerto Ricans, provided that they can be recruited by the US military.
I had not known about the last half of this sentence. Interesting. And typical. This is just one example of how EVERY war we have gotten involved in has resulted in our government making more concessions to minorities and reducing the restrictions ever further, in order to ensure loyalty, obtain cooperation, get more draftable material, etc. Our more recent wars (in the past half century) have also resulted in a flood of war brides, refugees, displaced persons, and asylum seekers, all pouring in with virtually guaranteed admission. Not to mention the illegitimate offspring conceived by US soldiers abroad.
My point is that every war we’ve been in has had a destructive demographic effect on the majority US population, further diluting and weakening it. War has also (especially since WW2) resulted in a general militarization of American society and culture. War movies and novels, soldiers, military life, became popular subjects, as they never were before. Military lingo invaded the language. In the 40s, virtually all Hollywood was in uniform or serving in some capacity. Nobody objected because this was “the good war” and everything about it was above criticism. After that, nothing was ever the same again. Movies and programs such as MASH and “I Dream of Jeanie” would not have existed before WW2 [forget the technology]. After the war, they were acceptable, even normal. Military themes and military families had become a common part of American society. Their presence henceforth was unquestioned. We became – and remained – a militarized society, far more so that we realized, as it has become so accustomed.
But again, aside from militarism’s deleterious effects on American culture, war’s worst effect on us was always demographic. With every war, our gates have opened wider, our barriers have fallen lower. I have never been particularly pacificist or anti-war myself, but just observing these inescapable facts forced me to realize that virtually ALL of our wars have been bad for us — although they have certainly been good for the profiteers who’ve grown rich on them. In short, it seems that all of our wars (with other powers, that is), probably since 1813, have been more destructive and harmful than not. From that assessment I would exclude our Indian “wars”, which I would consider more as “conflicts” than [international] wars in any traditional sense.
=====================================
GREAT POST! Took the words out of my mouth ! Thank you !
3 May, 2009 at 12:43 am
“This is just one example of how EVERY war we have gotten involved in has resulted in our government making more concessions to minorities and reducing the restrictions ever further, in order to ensure loyalty, obtain cooperation, get more draftable material, etc. “
Yes, and to purchase domestic tranquility at home, forestall subversion, prevent riots, etc. In other words, it was blackmail money.
In every case, we had to BUY peace at home in order to WAGE WAR abroad. And all to whose benefit? Certainly not ours. Yes, the “elites” profited handsomely, but “We The People” didn’t. We only furnished the cannon fodder. And then we came home to find integrated neighborhoods, schools, and jobs.
“Our more recent wars (in the past half century) have also resulted in a flood of war brides, refugees, displaced persons, and asylum seekers, all pouring in with virtually guaranteed admission. Not to mention the illegitimate offspring conceived by US soldiers abroad.”
And often black offspring, this should be noted. Another way of undermining White America.
3 May, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Like the peasants of Eastern Europe say, wars are the Jews’ harvest.