Today’s population is the result of yesterday’s immigration policy, andthat policy is as clearly broken as its backers’ assurances werefacetious. (As in they all LIED.– Ed.)
The Immigration and Nationality Act 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, co-sponsored by Philip Hart and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy.*
An annual limitation of 170,000 visas was established for immigrants from Eastern Hemisphere countries with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited, and it is only now that there are any country-origin quotas for spouses of US citizens, and numerical quotas for other relatives of US citizens.
In the Democratic-controlled Congress, the House of Representatives voted 326 to 69 (82.5%) in favor of the act while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. Opposition mainly came from Southern legislators. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation into law. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 became law on July 1, 1968. Along with the act of 1952, it serves as one of the parts of the United States Code until this day.During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, *”First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” The act’s supporters not only claimed the law would not change America’s ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.
By equalizing immigration policies, the Act resulted in a flood of new immigration from non-European nations that changed the ethnic make-up of the United States. Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1990.
Theseresults were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by theiremotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had laboredsince 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting familymembers on non-quota visas. The B’nai B’rith Women and the AmericanCouncil for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewishorganizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet insubcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twinmotivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potentialwindfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Otherorganized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefitrelatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans forDemocratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined thechorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigrationon the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.
Americans must realize demographic trends are notinevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today’s population is the result of yesterday’s immigration policy, andthat policy is as clearly broken as its backers’ assurances werefacetious. A rational policy will only come about when nativeAmericans place the national interest above liberal howls of”prejudice” and “tribalism.”