

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

"Laura Ingraham's maternal grandparents were immigrants from Poland." (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
Professional bigot Laura Ingraham, ensconced in the primo 10 pm slot at Fox Cable News, has delivered herself of one of her typical Know-Nothing pronouncements on immigration to the US.
First of all, the fourth wave of migration to the US has not been unprecedented, as indicated by the word "fourth." There have been previous waves. One of them unfortunately produced Laura Ingraham. Taken together, these waves of immigration produced 'the country we love.'
Second, the 1965 immigration law was crafted by the elected representatives of the people of the United States, i.e. Congress. It isn't true that 'we' didn't vote for it and don't want it. Immigration-haters are always posing as the true voice of the people. "We weren't asked!" they say. But the people were asked. In fact, because of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement, the people were embarrassed by 1965 at the Nazi immigration law of 1924 that set quotas for immigration essentially by race. And the current law was crafted by Southern white representatives and senators in hopes of favoring northern European immigration- that was the reason for the bias toward family unification and "chain migration." They had mainly admitted French, British, Scandinavians, etc. since 1924, so they hoped they could privilege that group. Unfortunately for white supremacy, the Europeans got to be well off in their own countries and stayed there, and it was Asians, Latinos and Africans who wanted to come, and then the family unification provisions unexpectedly helped them . The racists were hoisted on their own petard.
In 1900, midway through the third migration wave in US history, there were only about 76 million Americans. Between 1880 and 1924, some 20 million persons immigrated into the US. That is, the newcomers constituted on average 25 percent of the national population. That was a slightly bigger demographic change that the one the US has been experiencing since 1965. Since 1965 about 59 million immigrants have come to the US, though there aren't that many now because some have died and some have returned home. The US population midway through that process was about 250 mn. So that is less that 25%.
Laura Ingraham's maternal grandparents were immigrants from Poland, Michael Kozak and Carolina/Caroline Mazur. Her Polish-American mother worked as a waitress into her early 70s.
The white Protestant Kansas City Star saw Polish immigrants as uneducated, lacking in skills, lazy and in general "undesirable," and called for a halt to immigration from Poland as early as 1895:
"Even if there was a time when unrestricted immigration was a benefit to a new country, with its great areas of unsettled lands and a limited population, it does not follow that the legislation or non-legislation of that time should prevail with a great continental empire which, in myany places, has a crowding population. In the decade, 1820-1830, 128,293 immigrants arrived in the United States; in the decade, 1880-1890, 5,246,613 immigrants arrived. Anyone can very readily see a great difference of conditions. Should there not have been a difference in legislation and regulation to meet it?
"In 1869 the per cent of immigrants from Austria-Hungary, Italy, Poland and Russia was 0.9; the per cent of immigrants from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Scandinavia was 72.8. In 1894 the per cent of immigrants from Austria-Hungary, Italy, Poland and Russia was 38.7; from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Scandinavia it was 52.6 percent. Here was a great change of conditions; an enormous increase of undesirable immigration. Should there not have been regulating legislation, restriction? The great difference which demands a difference in the treatment of immigration is the difference in its character.
[The northern Europeans come educated and skilled.] "Later came the swarming immigration from Austria-Hungary, Poland, Italy and Russia. These represent thepoverty of their native countries, the laborers who work for the lowest wages or the class who do not work at all. These, too, are the most ignorant; they cannot read or write their own or any other language. Is there any reason why this latter immigration should be welcomed as was the former? Is there any reason why it should be welcomed at all?"
Then the next year the Philadelphia Inquirer ("Something More About Immigration," Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) * March 29, 1896 * Page 6) insisted that only two states in the union were seeking Italian immigrant labor, and said that none of the states wanted Russians, Poles or Hungarians.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Professional bigot Laura Ingraham, ensconced in the primo 10 pm slot at Fox Cable News, has delivered herself of one of her typical Know-Nothing pronouncements on immigration to the US.
First of all, the fourth wave of migration to the US has not been unprecedented, as indicated by the word "fourth." There have been previous waves. One of them unfortunately produced Laura Ingraham. Taken together, these waves of immigration produced 'the country we love.'
Second, the 1965 immigration law was crafted by the elected representatives of the people of the United States, i.e. Congress. It isn't true that 'we' didn't vote for it and don't want it. Immigration-haters are always posing as the true voice of the people. "We weren't asked!" they say. But the people were asked. In fact, because of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement, the people were embarrassed by 1965 at the Nazi immigration law of 1924 that set quotas for immigration essentially by race. And the current law was crafted by Southern white representatives and senators in hopes of favoring northern European immigration- that was the reason for the bias toward family unification and "chain migration." They had mainly admitted French, British, Scandinavians, etc. since 1924, so they hoped they could privilege that group. Unfortunately for white supremacy, the Europeans got to be well off in their own countries and stayed there, and it was Asians, Latinos and Africans who wanted to come, and then the family unification provisions unexpectedly helped them . The racists were hoisted on their own petard.
In 1900, midway through the third migration wave in US history, there were only about 76 million Americans. Between 1880 and 1924, some 20 million persons immigrated into the US. That is, the newcomers constituted on average 25 percent of the national population. That was a slightly bigger demographic change that the one the US has been experiencing since 1965. Since 1965 about 59 million immigrants have come to the US, though there aren't that many now because some have died and some have returned home. The US population midway through that process was about 250 mn. So that is less that 25%.
Laura Ingraham's maternal grandparents were immigrants from Poland, Michael Kozak and Carolina/Caroline Mazur. Her Polish-American mother worked as a waitress into her early 70s.
The white Protestant Kansas City Star saw Polish immigrants as uneducated, lacking in skills, lazy and in general "undesirable," and called for a halt to immigration from Poland as early as 1895:
"Even if there was a time when unrestricted immigration was a benefit to a new country, with its great areas of unsettled lands and a limited population, it does not follow that the legislation or non-legislation of that time should prevail with a great continental empire which, in myany places, has a crowding population. In the decade, 1820-1830, 128,293 immigrants arrived in the United States; in the decade, 1880-1890, 5,246,613 immigrants arrived. Anyone can very readily see a great difference of conditions. Should there not have been a difference in legislation and regulation to meet it?
"In 1869 the per cent of immigrants from Austria-Hungary, Italy, Poland and Russia was 0.9; the per cent of immigrants from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Scandinavia was 72.8. In 1894 the per cent of immigrants from Austria-Hungary, Italy, Poland and Russia was 38.7; from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Scandinavia it was 52.6 percent. Here was a great change of conditions; an enormous increase of undesirable immigration. Should there not have been regulating legislation, restriction? The great difference which demands a difference in the treatment of immigration is the difference in its character.
[The northern Europeans come educated and skilled.] "Later came the swarming immigration from Austria-Hungary, Poland, Italy and Russia. These represent thepoverty of their native countries, the laborers who work for the lowest wages or the class who do not work at all. These, too, are the most ignorant; they cannot read or write their own or any other language. Is there any reason why this latter immigration should be welcomed as was the former? Is there any reason why it should be welcomed at all?"
Then the next year the Philadelphia Inquirer ("Something More About Immigration," Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) * March 29, 1896 * Page 6) insisted that only two states in the union were seeking Italian immigrant labor, and said that none of the states wanted Russians, Poles or Hungarians.
Professional bigot Laura Ingraham, ensconced in the primo 10 pm slot at Fox Cable News, has delivered herself of one of her typical Know-Nothing pronouncements on immigration to the US.
First of all, the fourth wave of migration to the US has not been unprecedented, as indicated by the word "fourth." There have been previous waves. One of them unfortunately produced Laura Ingraham. Taken together, these waves of immigration produced 'the country we love.'
Second, the 1965 immigration law was crafted by the elected representatives of the people of the United States, i.e. Congress. It isn't true that 'we' didn't vote for it and don't want it. Immigration-haters are always posing as the true voice of the people. "We weren't asked!" they say. But the people were asked. In fact, because of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement, the people were embarrassed by 1965 at the Nazi immigration law of 1924 that set quotas for immigration essentially by race. And the current law was crafted by Southern white representatives and senators in hopes of favoring northern European immigration- that was the reason for the bias toward family unification and "chain migration." They had mainly admitted French, British, Scandinavians, etc. since 1924, so they hoped they could privilege that group. Unfortunately for white supremacy, the Europeans got to be well off in their own countries and stayed there, and it was Asians, Latinos and Africans who wanted to come, and then the family unification provisions unexpectedly helped them . The racists were hoisted on their own petard.
In 1900, midway through the third migration wave in US history, there were only about 76 million Americans. Between 1880 and 1924, some 20 million persons immigrated into the US. That is, the newcomers constituted on average 25 percent of the national population. That was a slightly bigger demographic change that the one the US has been experiencing since 1965. Since 1965 about 59 million immigrants have come to the US, though there aren't that many now because some have died and some have returned home. The US population midway through that process was about 250 mn. So that is less that 25%.
Laura Ingraham's maternal grandparents were immigrants from Poland, Michael Kozak and Carolina/Caroline Mazur. Her Polish-American mother worked as a waitress into her early 70s.
The white Protestant Kansas City Star saw Polish immigrants as uneducated, lacking in skills, lazy and in general "undesirable," and called for a halt to immigration from Poland as early as 1895:
"Even if there was a time when unrestricted immigration was a benefit to a new country, with its great areas of unsettled lands and a limited population, it does not follow that the legislation or non-legislation of that time should prevail with a great continental empire which, in myany places, has a crowding population. In the decade, 1820-1830, 128,293 immigrants arrived in the United States; in the decade, 1880-1890, 5,246,613 immigrants arrived. Anyone can very readily see a great difference of conditions. Should there not have been a difference in legislation and regulation to meet it?
"In 1869 the per cent of immigrants from Austria-Hungary, Italy, Poland and Russia was 0.9; the per cent of immigrants from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Scandinavia was 72.8. In 1894 the per cent of immigrants from Austria-Hungary, Italy, Poland and Russia was 38.7; from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Scandinavia it was 52.6 percent. Here was a great change of conditions; an enormous increase of undesirable immigration. Should there not have been regulating legislation, restriction? The great difference which demands a difference in the treatment of immigration is the difference in its character.
[The northern Europeans come educated and skilled.] "Later came the swarming immigration from Austria-Hungary, Poland, Italy and Russia. These represent thepoverty of their native countries, the laborers who work for the lowest wages or the class who do not work at all. These, too, are the most ignorant; they cannot read or write their own or any other language. Is there any reason why this latter immigration should be welcomed as was the former? Is there any reason why it should be welcomed at all?"
Then the next year the Philadelphia Inquirer ("Something More About Immigration," Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) * March 29, 1896 * Page 6) insisted that only two states in the union were seeking Italian immigrant labor, and said that none of the states wanted Russians, Poles or Hungarians.