All the anti-immigration talk legal or otherwise reminds me of the USA’s history of anti Irish, Italian, Chinese, Jew and Catholic hate and lies. WELCOME ABOARD MAGA.
Thank you Mr President for bringing back the hate, prejudice, racism, bigotry and xenophobia that once plagued America.
You have done a great job. You are following the Project 2025 to the letter. Millions of insecure American nativists are lapping up your propaganda, well done. Is this the road to greatness?
A hundred plus years ago my ancestors in NJ held Mass secretly in their home because they were afraid of the anti-Catholic movement.
Today some Americans focus on Muslims encouraged by their president who openly attacks Muslim members of Congress.
Irish, Italian, Jewish (mostly 19th–early 20th century European waves): Faced intense nativism based on religion (Catholicism for Irish/Italians), perceived racial inferiority (especially Southern/Eastern Europeans), economic competition, and cultural/linguistic differences. This included violence (e.g., anti-Irish riots, 1891 Italian lynching), job discrimination (“No Irish Need Apply”), and quotas via the 1924 Immigration Act. However, they were ultimately classified as “white” under U.S. law, enabling pathways to citizenship, intermarriage, and assimilation over 2–4 generations.
• Asian (primarily Chinese/Japanese, 19th–early 20th century): Encountered the harshest, explicitly racial exclusion—violence (e.g., Chinese massacres), the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act (first ethnic/national ban), naturalization denial, and 1924 quotas barring most Asians. Acceptance was delayed until mid-20th century reforms (e.g., 1943 repeal for Chinese, 1965 Act).
You know what’s different between undocumented immigrants today, the so-called “illegals,” and the millions of immigrants from Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Bohemia, Hungary, and other outposts of eastern and central Europe, from Italy and Ireland, Germany, Spain, etc., that came here during the great immigration (1880-1920s)?
Nothing.
With the exception of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), there were no restrictive immigration laws that prevented our great-grandparents and grandparents from coming here. The oft-repeated claim that they came here legally is rather meaningless.
They didn’t need documents, passports, visas; America wanted their labor, energy, ingenuity, which they contributed despite the racism, bigotry, antisemitism, anti-Catholic hate hurled at them. America wants and needs the same kinds of contributions from immigrants now.
It is pathetic to witness the descendants of immigrants who contributed so much to this country joining the “blood and soil,” white nationlist rabble.
Neil Brown – Facebook comment
The Constitution protects “persons,” not just citizens — and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said undocumented immigrants are persons under the law.
Rights undocumented immigrants do have
While in the U.S., they are protected by:
- Due process — government can’t jail, deport, or punish them arbitrarily
- Equal protection — laws must apply fairly
- Freedom of speech & religion
- Protection from unreasonable searches
- Right to a lawyer and a fair trial in criminal cases
- Labor protections (minimum wage, safety laws, etc.)
A famous case is Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court ruled Texas could not deny public K-12 education to undocumented children because they are protected by the 14th Amendment.
Rights they don’t have
They don’t have rights tied specifically to citizenship, like:
- Voting in federal elections
- Holding federal office
- Protection from deportation
- Some public benefits tied to legal status
Having constitutional rights does not mean they have a right to stay in the country. Immigration law allows removal, but the government must follow legal procedures when doing it.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
I still haven’t heard addressed the idea that immigrants, even ‘illegal’ ones, are a net benefit to the U.S., and removing ALL of them (because ‘the law is the law’ and we can’t pick and choose) will be detrimental.Especially if it is done rapidly,* with no time for business and the economy to adjust. Again, DJT proposed leniency for agriculture and hospitality workers (and ‘certain others’??) even if for venal Trump reasons.
Who changed his mind? Who is really in charge?
*and at great cost, financially and societally. How many have to die? Can we get the militia off our streets?
LikeLike
Al Lindquist:
expedited removal is allowed and is widely used–crossing illegally does not guarantee “due process” before you are booted out–if you rob the Piggly Wiggly well then you get due process–do you think we are going to provide 7 to 8 million lawyers to adjudicate Carlos and his neighbors at the local NJ courthouse?
your family and mine came legally? times were different–laws were different–women could not vote–black men were hung from trees –gay and lesbian were unheard of–divorce was a “no no”.
yes, your family said Mass in private so they would not be doxed–same reason our neighbors , relatives, and friends who work for ICE wear masks–they need protection from the crazies who would look for their homes and families to commit mayhem–you see things have not really changed–
if millions of unvetted folks were not allowed to invade the country this issue would be substantially different.
“equal protection of the law”–to me it means we all follow the law–if you are here ILLEGALLY–or carrying a machine gun–or not filing with the IRS–or driving without auto insurance then you are subject to arrest and proper (legal) penalty.
LikeLike
“…if millions of unvetted folks were not allowed to invade the country this issue would be substantially different.”
Alternative facts, at best.
Biden:
“So, today, I’m moving past Republican obstruction and using the executive authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border.
Frankly, I would have preferred to address this issue through bipartisan legislation, because that’s the only way to actually get the kind of system we have now — that’s broken — fixed, to hire more Border Patrol agents, more asylum officers, more judges. But Republicans have left me with no choice.”…..
“The Statue of Liberty is not some relic of American history. It stands for who we are as the United States.
So, I will never demonize immigrants. I will never refer to immigrants as “poisoning the blood” of a country. And further, I’ll never separate children from their families at the border.
I will not ban people from this country because of their religious beliefs. I will not use the U.S. military to go into neighborhoods all across the country to pull millions of people out of their homes and away from their families to put detention camps and awai- — while awaiting deportation, as my predecessor says he will do if he to- — occupies this office again.”
LikeLike
Al Lindquist
good Biden quote—what’s the date?? could have been done in January of ’21,before letting in millions–once the election was in peril he acted which was 10 million invaders too late.
who says they are a net benefit? –and even so we don’t make decisions based on economic benefit of illegal activity–prohibition was not good for business but we adopted it only to repeal (21st Amendment) when the Depression hit.
alternative fact?? what’s that?? 2 people would be alive today if riots and mayhem was not occurring in MN–all because of an invasion carried out by the loons on the left.
LikeLike
Al Lindquist
good Biden quote—what’s the date?? could have been done in January of ’21,before letting in millions–once the election was in peril he acted which was 10 million invaders too late.
who says they are a net benefit? –and even so we don’t make decisions based on economic benefit of illegal activity–prohibition was not good for business but we adopted it only to repeal (21st Amendment) when the Depression hit.
alternative fact?? what’s that?? 2 people would be alive today if riots and mayhem was not occurring in MN–all because of an invasion carried out by the loons on the left.
LikeLike