|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 08, 2020, 02:40:04 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  Political geography without the Great Migration
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Political geography without the Great Migration  (Read 1008 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2019, 01:03:43 am »

Northern whites would be much more Liberal and European like, without the racial polarization.
Like they are in Iowa and rural MI?  Keep in mind the places in the north with large black populations like Chicago and Detriot have fairly liberal white populations.  Racial polarization in the midwest isn't like the south

It wasn't that way back in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. Urban ethnic whites joined forces with high end Republican suburbia to give Nixon his victories in key industrial states like MI, ILL, OH and also CA. The same thing happened in 1980 with Reagan, added by Anderson peeling off liberals in those cities as well.


Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2019, 01:08:39 am »

Northern whites would be much more Liberal and European like, without the racial polarization.

Certain segments yes, but the irony is who would be their vehicle for advancement? Blacks in the south keep the Democrats glued to their race conscious base, which makes them the party of high end Southerners. Meanwhile Republicans would remain the party of Northern Business interests. So both parties would be more moderate and open to government intervention, it is unlikely that it would be a massive shift to the left barring a collapse for one of the parties or the supplanting of one of them by the Progressives at some point.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2019, 01:45:38 am »


Yawn. another right-winger implying illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections when there's no evidence to back this up.

I wasn't just talking about illegals.  The '65 act let in legal immigrants mostly from Latin America and Asia, populations which vote Dem 2:1.  Also, while illegals technically aren't allowed to vote (California lacks voter ID requirements so there is likely at least some illegal voting there), but the kids the illegals have on US soil are automatically citizens and they can vote.  Illegal immigration does have political implications in the long run, just delayed.  If Latino immigration remained capped at around 5% of all immigration and laws against illegal immigration were actually enforced, the Southwest would look nothing like it does today politically.  CA, AZ, NV, and TX would all vote more conservative and have lower populations.  

Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,247
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2019, 07:10:21 am »

Another interesting map would be US without 1965 immigration act+ enforcing immigration laws at the southern border.

Without the 1965 Immigration Act almost all those Latin Americans wanting to immigrate here could.
Before the act, quotas capped immigration from countries corresponding to their percent of the US population.  Latinos were under 5% so Latino immigration couldn't exceed that by more than 3%, per the quota law.  3rd world immigration was capped to maintain the demographics.
The quotas before 1965 didn't apply to countries in the Americas. Now there were certain other formalities that had to observed, but most of those now crossing our southern border now would be able to do so if the pre-1965 law were still in force. Those from "the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, and the independent republics of Central and South America" were non-quota immigrants by section 4(c) of the Immigration Act of 1924.
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2019, 11:15:28 am »

Another interesting map would be US without 1965 immigration act+ enforcing immigration laws at the southern border.


Yawn. another right-winger implying illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections when there's no evidence to back this up.

You do realise the 1965 Immigration Act drastically changed the racial makeup of the United States due by and large to legal immigration, right?

Of course I do?

He said ..."enforcing immigration laws at the Southern border", implying that illegal immigrants are being allowed into the country and voting.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2019, 07:17:17 pm »

Another interesting map would be US without 1965 immigration act+ enforcing immigration laws at the southern border.


Yawn. another right-winger implying illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections when there's no evidence to back this up.

You do realise the 1965 Immigration Act drastically changed the racial makeup of the United States due by and large to legal immigration, right?

Of course I do?

He said ..."enforcing immigration laws at the Southern border", implying that illegal immigrants are being allowed into the country and voting.
Do you know what birthright citizenship is?
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2019, 07:20:15 pm »

Another interesting map would be US without 1965 immigration act+ enforcing immigration laws at the southern border.

Without the 1965 Immigration Act almost all those Latin Americans wanting to immigrate here could.
Before the act, quotas capped immigration from countries corresponding to their percent of the US population.  Latinos were under 5% so Latino immigration couldn't exceed that by more than 3%, per the quota law.  3rd world immigration was capped to maintain the demographics.
The quotas before 1965 didn't apply to countries in the Americas. Now there were certain other formalities that had to observed, but most of those now crossing our southern border now would be able to do so if the pre-1965 law were still in force. Those from "the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, and the independent republics of Central and South America" were non-quota immigrants by section 4(c) of the Immigration Act of 1924.
You imply we had open borders with Mexico before 1965, heard of operation wetback?  We did deport illegals from latin america before.  But to be clear, I support strict limits on immigration from low development, high crime, high birthrate countries like mexico.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,247
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2019, 09:28:54 pm »

Another interesting map would be US without 1965 immigration act+ enforcing immigration laws at the southern border.

Without the 1965 Immigration Act almost all those Latin Americans wanting to immigrate here could.
Before the act, quotas capped immigration from countries corresponding to their percent of the US population.  Latinos were under 5% so Latino immigration couldn't exceed that by more than 3%, per the quota law.  3rd world immigration was capped to maintain the demographics.
The quotas before 1965 didn't apply to countries in the Americas. Now there were certain other formalities that had to observed, but most of those now crossing our southern border now would be able to do so if the pre-1965 law were still in force. Those from "the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, and the independent republics of Central and South America" were non-quota immigrants by section 4(c) of the Immigration Act of 1924.
You imply we had open borders with Mexico before 1965, heard of operation wetback?  We did deport illegals from latin america before.  But to be clear, I support strict limits on immigration from low development, high crime, high birthrate countries like mexico.

I sincerely hope for your sake that you don't have any Irish ancestry. After all, the Know Nothings wanted strict limits from low development, high crime, high birthrate countries like Ireland.  But I digress.

I never said the borders were completely open. Immigrants from elsewhere in the Americas were supposed to complete certain formalities that the Mexican government put roadblocks on because they didn't want major emmigration. (There were times when Mexican crops rotted in the fields for lack of labor to harvest them.) The Bracero program was initially an arrangement to get the Mexican government to allow Mexicans to come north on a seasonal basis that allowed for crops on both sides of the border to be harvested in a timely fashion and freed up U.S. manpower to be used in the war effort.

Now it's true that some Mexicans didn't bother with the formalities and others overstayed their time in the Bracero program. It's also the case that the Bracero program was continued at least a decade longer than it should have. However, it's also true that the vast majority of Central American asylum seekers would be admitable as ordinary immigrants if the pre-1965 law were in place.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2019, 01:47:23 am »

Another interesting map would be US without 1965 immigration act+ enforcing immigration laws at the southern border.

Without the 1965 Immigration Act almost all those Latin Americans wanting to immigrate here could.
Before the act, quotas capped immigration from countries corresponding to their percent of the US population.  Latinos were under 5% so Latino immigration couldn't exceed that by more than 3%, per the quota law.  3rd world immigration was capped to maintain the demographics.
The quotas before 1965 didn't apply to countries in the Americas. Now there were certain other formalities that had to observed, but most of those now crossing our southern border now would be able to do so if the pre-1965 law were still in force. Those from "the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, and the independent republics of Central and South America" were non-quota immigrants by section 4(c) of the Immigration Act of 1924.
You imply we had open borders with Mexico before 1965, heard of operation wetback?  We did deport illegals from latin america before.  But to be clear, I support strict limits on immigration from low development, high crime, high birthrate countries like mexico.

I sincerely hope for your sake that you don't have any Irish ancestry. After all, the Know Nothings wanted strict limits from low development, high crime, high birthrate countries like Ireland.  But I digress.

I never said the borders were completely open. Immigrants from elsewhere in the Americas were supposed to complete certain formalities that the Mexican government put roadblocks on because they didn't want major emmigration. (There were times when Mexican crops rotted in the fields for lack of labor to harvest them.) The Bracero program was initially an arrangement to get the Mexican government to allow Mexicans to come north on a seasonal basis that allowed for crops on both sides of the border to be harvested in a timely fashion and freed up U.S. manpower to be used in the war effort.

Now it's true that some Mexicans didn't bother with the formalities and others overstayed their time in the Bracero program. It's also the case that the Bracero program was continued at least a decade longer than it should have. However, it's also true that the vast majority of Central American asylum seekers would be admitable as ordinary immigrants if the pre-1965 law were in place.
I never said I support the Know Nothing Party restrictions.  I just am not sure why we need to turn more red states blue, CA, NV, NM, CO, and AZ are enough.  Not all of those are blue but they're headed that way.  Also in that time there wasn't a need to restrict mexican immigration because they weren't coming in such numbers where they'd become a majority in any states.  But now we need restriction.  One problem I have with the current immigration debate is that letting in millions of legal immigrants per year is treated as non-negotiable.  It's perfectly reasonable to say 320 million people is enough, especially with automation on the horizon.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines