ballsalsa said:

No, you specified that there were no quotas on mexican immigrarion until the 60's and yhen said yhat immigration was not a national issue until 2001.  You were wrong, even though your heart is in the right place.  I already used the 86 ammesty bill as an example, i didn't even need the Chinese exclusion act to make my point

---

Quote:

Colonialists weren't immigrants and the United states has had a long racist history with Mexico. Mexican immigration to the states legal or illegal has been a hot topic for at least half a century

---

Yeah.. agreed. Half a century puts us at 1968...

krypto2000 said:

ballsalsa said:

No, you specified that there were no quotas on mexican immigrarion until the 60's and yhen said yhat immigration was not a national issue until 2001.  You were wrong, even though your heart is in the right place.  I already used the 86 ammesty bill as an example, i didn't even need the Chinese exclusion act to make my point

---

What did I say that you are disputing? There were no quotas until '65, the wetback thing was about illegal entries, and by national issue I meant popular as in a common talking point amongst people acrosd the nation, not national as in federal.

Quote:

Colonialists weren't immigrants and the United states has had a long racist history with Mexico. Mexican immigration to the states legal or illegal has been a hot topic for at least half a century

---

Yeah.. agreed. Half a century puts us at 1968...

---

MagicMush123 said:

You have the Chinese exclusion act, the immigration act of 1924, etc. I don't know how much more proof you need

---

krypto2000 said:

MagicMush123 said:

You have the Chinese exclusion act, the immigration act of 1924, etc. I don't know how much more proof you need

---

It would seem as if you haven't been following the conversation.

---

The 1924 immigration act effectively put a figurative wall up curbing immigration to usa. Also disproves your notion that there were quotas on immigration prior to the 60s

krypto2000 said:

Right, until the late 1800's or early 1900's there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

---

Quote:

Prior to 1965 there wasn't even a quota on immigrants entering from south of the border.

---

Quote:

The Zoot Suit Riots were a series of conflicts on June 3–8, 1943 in Los Angeles, California, United States, which pitted American servicemen stationed in Southern California against Mexican-American youths and other minorities who were residents of the city. It was one of the dozen wartime industrial cities that suffered racial-related riots in the summer of 1943, along with Mobile, Alabama; Beaumont, Texas; Detroit, Michigan; and New York City.

American servicemen and white civilians attacked and stripped children, teens, and youths who wore zoot suits, ostensibly because they considered the outfits to be unpatriotic during World War II, as they had a lot of fabric. Rationing of fabric was required at the time for the war effort. The conflicts were rooted in and an expression of racism against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. While most of the violence was directed toward Mexican-American youth, young African-American and Filipino-Americans who were wearing zoot suits were also attacked.[1]

The Zoot Suit Riots were related to fears and hostilities aroused by the coverage of the Sleepy Lagoon murder trial, following the killing of a young Latino man in a barrio near Los Angeles. The riot appeared to trigger similar attacks that year against Latinos in Chicago, San Diego, Oakland, Evansville, Philadelphia, and New York City.[2]

---

krypto2000 said:

krypto2000 said:

Right, until the late 1800's or early 1900's there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

---

The 1924 act disputes that?

Quote:

Prior to 1965 there wasn't even a quota on immigrants entering from south of the border.

---

As I said, you do not seem to have been following the thread. I never said what you seem to think I did.

---

krypto2000 said:

I still don't even hear it talked about locally where I live and I didn't hear it talked about much at all until sometime during Bush's presidency, I'm only citing 2001 as thst makes the most sense when analyzing historical events.

---

Quote:

On February 28, 1845, the U.S. Congress narrowly passed a bill that authorized the United States to annex the Republic of Texas if it so voted. The legislation set the date for annexation for December 29 of the same year. On October 13 of the same year, a majority of voters in Texas approved a proposed constitution that specifically endorsed slavery and the slave trade. This constitution was later accepted by the U.S. Congress, making Texas a U.S. state on the same day annexation took effect (therefore bypassing a territorial phase).

The Mexican government had long warned that annexation would mean war with the United States. When Texas joined the U.S., the Mexican government broke diplomatic relations with the United States. The United States now assumed the claims of Texas when it claimed all land north of the Rio Grande. In June 1845, President James K. Polk sent General Zachary Taylor to Texas, and by October, 3,500 Americans were on the Nueces River, prepared to defend Texas from a Mexican invasion. On November 10, 1845,[126] Polk ordered General Taylor and his forces south to the Rio Grande, into disputed territory that Mexicans claimed as their own. Mexico claimed the Nueces River—about 150 miles (240 km) north of the Rio Grande—as its border with Texas.

On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 70-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 16 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair. Both nations declared war. In the ensuing Mexican–American War, there were no more battles fought in Texas, but it became a major staging point for the American invasion of northern Mexico.

---