Discussion: Donald Trump’s Exclusionary Immigration Proposal is All Too American

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #243548

2 Likes
2

Actually, the early immigration laws of the US were designed to provide the most benefit to America, not to the immigrants.

Basically, the laws were intended to exclude what were (at that time) considered undesirable elements from new immigrants, again to improve America, not the immigrants .

3

Donald Trump is the walking, talking strutting, yelling, bigoted embodiment of everything bin Laden hoped to achieve on 9/11/01.

5 Likes
4

As Ted Cruz quietly distances himself without openly condemning, he must be licking his chops at the prospect of picking up Trump’s supporters.

5

Cruz, the opportunist, is waiting on the sidelines to pick up the pieces if/when Trump implodes!

1 Like
6

Yes, we were improving America by codifying our racism. Got it.

1 Like
7

I fear that in this primary election cycle, it will only get worse before it gets better.

1 Like
8

This just in

Gestapo at 11!

1 Like
9

Thank you, Ben, for another great post. The Page Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act are kind of the flip side of the Treaty of Tripoli in this debate. It’s invaluable to know we’re capable of both.

2 Likes
10

Thanks very much! I’ve thought a lot about what I’d call the tension between exclusionary and inclusive attitudes in American history and identity, and I definitely agree that the Treaty and these Acts represent those two ends of the spectrum very fully.

It’s also always comforting to me that the exclusionary efforts never entirely succeed–the Chinese Exclusion Act, for example, was intended both to destroy an existing American community and prevent future arrivals, and it did neither; the existing community endured, and there were 30,000 more Chinese Americans on the 1890 census as the 1880 one. The better America finds a way!

Thanks,
Ben

3 Likes
11

You, sir, are an optimist. But you just might be right. :wink:

1 Like
12

I would characterize the legalized discrimination of the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a stain on America that contradicts the ideals under which the nation was founded after the revolution and codified through the constitution after that. But while difficult to reconcile with American values, they were ultimately undone. I think they serve better as a warning to us in our present circumstance than a cynical affirmation of our past, shameful conduct. The march toward freedom has continued, in part, because of the vision set out in the constitution. Let’s keep moving forward.

1 Like
13

Was there ever exclusion based on religion? Exclusion based on the country of origin (citizenship) is easy to implement and enforce. But religion? If every Muslim answers “no” to the question “are you Muslim”, how is Trump going to prove otherwise?

2 Likes
14

This seems unfair Ben, to include all Americans as a part of. It is painting with a broad brush just the same as saying Texas/Texans suck or all of anything is rotten because a small part of it is.
Our immigration policies were likely created by a small group with a very special agenda, most likely money and outright racism. Yes, some Americans created the policies and implemented them as best as they could but the haters are always in the minority and just an unfortunate ‘part’ of America.
I just won’t swallow that Trump and his bigotry for sale is Americana for two reasons. Because Trump is playing this roll for one and because the similarities don’t make it the same automatically. Again, this is Trump working a niche, not America as a whole being exclusionary.
OTOH, we could, because we always have been, be American because of being the land of the free whom welcomed all. The melting pot of all races, colors and creeds.

I guess it’s a perspective thing or a POV thing. One can always choose to see the other side or not.

I compliment you again, your articles are always interesting and informative, thanks.

2 Likes
15

A good question and difference to note, but I would add this: many of the same problems came up after the Chinese Exclusion Act, and unfortunately were solved in the worst way–a subsequent law gave customs officers absolute authority to enforce the law, and many times Japanese or Filipino arrivals (to name only two groups) were apparently designated as Chinese and detained at Angel Island and etc. So I hear you, but I would worry with such an exclusionary policy that it simply could be applied to even more people based on the ambiguity or vagueness.

Thanks,
Ben

2 Likes
16

Thanks as always for the comment and good thoughts. I definitely am not trying to paint all Americans with this brush, but I would also argue that this exclusionary trend has always been a part of America, and one that has gained ascendancy in our politics and society at certain times. That doesn’t make it the majority necessarily, just one force, and I agree one that often can come from a powerful but smaller elite. But it also means that we can’t just dismiss Trump et al as un-American, without acknowledging and considering these parts of our histories and identities.

On the other hand, I’m with you on the best of what we’ve been and are, and would always return to that in my own perspective.

Thanks,
Ben

1 Like
17

OK Ben, I very much begrudgingly agree. It’s just Trump that grates on me and I won’t give him the benefit of anything personally.
If he is what being an American is or means, then I have been quite deluded my entire life.

I’m saying, and this is sad but true, that America stands divided these days and he is definitely on the opposite side of the divide from me and I believe also from you and most people here.

Trump is unoriginal, an opportunist, a slick salesman and just a continuation of the very same that came before him. I view his schtick as pathetic and a sign of weakness, which says very, very little for his followers.

Read you next post ; )
from the Flank

1 Like