Both truth_seeker and txradio are correct, in posts above.
But... if I was to point out that before the immigration reform of 1965 American immigration policy was essentially DISCRIMINATORY in nature -- that it endeavoured to admit only whites, and deliberately excluded Asians, blacks, and people of non-European heritage -- you'll try to shrink away from that reality.
Yet... that's the way it was.
Our "immigration policy" was by and large limited to admitting.... WHITE PEOPLE.
With very few exceptions.
It's only because we STOPPED "discriminating" that we face the mess before us today.
Would you prefer that pre-1965 policy, to the ones we have today?
I would.
Does saying so make me a pariah...?
@Fishrrman Yes in some ways a return to pre-1965 would be preferable.
Lost in your comment that it was mainly white Europeans that were coming in...was the fact that the people were coming wanted to work...wanted to be here legally.
Pre 1965 you had to have a sponsor and you and your sponsor were checked up on to make sure you weren't just being a leech on society.
Pre 1965 there had been pauses in allowing people into the country in order to allow them to assimilate into the American culture.
Pre 1965 there was more emphasis having a "purpose" for wanting to immigrate here.
Pre 1965 Caesar Chavez worked with the INS to keep farmers from hiring illegals. Today he'd probably be called a traitor to his race.
There are a lot of advantages of going bcak to the pre 1965 immigration model.
It's just gonna take a congress and President strong enough to withstand the "racist" label that will be branded on them by the media and the Left.