Editor: I’m sure LaJuana Gillette is aware that this was originally a continent composed of many Native American nations all of which had their own religions, customs and ways of life. Huge numbers of Native American Indians lost their lives or were forced to relocate because they were an inconvenience to white invading settlers and referred to as being “the Indian problem”.

Indian children were forced to be relocated to Christian boarding schools where they were forbidden to us their native language, their native dress or practice their native culture. The American Indians have always had to fight for their ethnic survival.

All those actions took place long ago, in a time when religious and cultural tolerance was not the norm. Today, things hopefully have changed. For you to say that America belongs to the white people and has always been a Christian nation is ludicrous. Our original settlers were from many different religious and cultural sects. Today, this land is composed of many legitimate minority sects and many well established religions from all over the world. That is the tolerant and inclusive type of America that was envisioned and supported by our founding fathers. The message of tolerance and inclusion is even inscribed on the statue of Liberty. Gillette truly needs to broaden her view of what America is all about. If this nation is to fulfill its destiny, then we must be a little more tolerant than the viewpoints she is suggesting.

Bruce Hinman

Lake Havasu City

2
0
0
0
0

(10) comments

Proudindependent

Rovr posted some facts whether you like them or not. If you don't post your own facts, but attacking the message without any clear alternative views seems juvenile at best.

HwyRovr

Gillette needs to go. Any politician who believe we are a Christian nation (we are not) and that immigrants are determined to "change" our nation (remember our nation was built by immigrants) has no business holding office. Why anyone would support a politician who will not represent every American is a question for all time.

VA172

"Why anyone would support a politician who will not represent every American is a question for all time". How would this ever happen? A politicians will not represent all people outside of their campaign promises. Once they are in office they have their own agenda. I think you would agree that whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, Christian or non Christian it would be impossible for someone to represent all people and their particular interests.



Yes, immigrants did build our nation. The fact is those immigrants are not the same as the ones coming to America today. Our ancestors came here under the understanding they would learn the English language, become citizens and Americans. These immigrants did not receive any sort of financial help. free food or free housing. The majority coming in out times are offered all of these. Many believe it's their right to get free assistance. You and I will disagree as to the immigration issue. I feel if they want to come follow the laws. I also do not believe just because you cross the border without permission you have the right to stay here. That's one of the main reasons for all the problems at the border. Facilities were not designed to handle that many people and the politicians wouldn't take care of that when they should have. Way too much bickering from both parties.

HwyRovr

“…those immigrants are not the same as the ones coming to America today.”

Let’s look at some facts regarding “those immigrants” – In 1750 people of non-WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) descent were crossing the ocean to start lives in the new world, and Colonial settlers were none too happy about it. Among them, with ferocious conviction, was Benjamin Franklin, hater of Germans.

In writings from that decade, Franklin shared his concerns about the Germans: “Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.” - “Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.” And they were endangering New England’s whiteness. “The Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted. Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”

Alexander Hamilton, an immigrant himself, the country’s first Treasury secretary—supported John Adams’ 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, which increased US residency requirements for US citizenship from five years to 14 years (it’s back down to five now) and allowed the president to forcefully deport immigrants. Hamilton wrote of the dangers of letting aliens into the country, arguing, “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.” ers.

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t too keen on the Germans, whom he apparently saw as setting a bad example for other immigrants. “As to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government.”

Since the beginning of the nation, several laws have been passed to contain specific types of immigration. In the 1870s California pushed the federal government to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act. The act, passed in 1882, banned immigration from China and marked the first federal government involvement in the matter of immigration.

Not long after the government further tightened restrictions on immigration from the east with the Asiatic Barred Zone Act of 1917. The act demanded immigrants pass literacy tests, and excluded certain categories of “undesirables” according to the act, citizens of most Asian and Pacific nations, with the exception of Japan and the Philippines.

In 1924, immigration from Asia was still barred, and quotas were introduced with the aim of limiting immigration of eastern and southern Europeans, particularly Italians, Greeks, and eastern European. Those demanding the quotas anted America to return to a period when immigrants came from Germany and northern Europe. Immigrants from other areas of Europe presented problems. First, they were seen as non-assimilating and holding threatening views that undermined the American way of life, such as being pro-labor, or socialist; second they were not considered completely white.

Being white was, at the time, a key to US citizenship. People of Asian descent, for instance, were forbidden from citizenship because of their complexion. In 1922, the limits of what it meant to be white were tested by Takao Ozawa and Takuji Yamashita, two Japanese Americans whose naturalization cases were brought up to the Supreme Court, with the petition resting on the fact that Japanese people were white skinned. The court ruled against both petitioners on the same day, ruling that “white person” was a categorization that could only apply to people who were Caucasian.

The following year, when Bhagat Singh Thind, a Sikh man, applied for naturalization on the basis that like many Europeans, Northern Indians were Aryans, and hence of Caucasian race, the Supreme Court struck his case down, too, arguing that he didn’t fit the “common understanding” of being Caucasian.

For a long time restrictions on citizenships didn’t apply to Mexicans. With the Great Depression the idea Mexicans were competing for already rare jobs became prevalent, and between 1929 and 1944, up to 2 million of them were targets of so-called “repatriations.” Effectively, they were the chosen scapegoats of the moment, raided and either deported or scared to the point of leaving the country by themselves, regardless of whether they held US citizenship.

In 1942, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor prompted US involvement in World War II, president Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese Americans, who were sent to live in areas designated by the US military. People of Japanese origin were kept in internment camps or relocation camps, under the suspicion that they might be sympathizing with the enemy. Nearly 70% of the 130,000 detainees were American citizens.

At the same time, Americans weren’t particularly welcoming to the primary victims of their main enemy’s fury—Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution in Europe were not easily offered asylum to the US, and they were turned around. A historic case is that of the St. Louis, a ship full of Jewish asylum seekers. It was not accepted by the US, and its passengers ended up dying in Nazi concentration camps.

It wouldn’t be the last time the US aligned itself against a foreign enemy (the Nazis then, the Islamic State today) without it translating into broad acceptance of the refugees driven from their homes by that enemy—with the refugees, then as now, suspected of posing a threat to the country’s safety.

More recently the Republican party started creating and riding an anti-immigration sentiment, this wing of the party propagates the idea that illegal immigration from Mexico is out of control—while, in fact, it’s at historically low levels.


HavasuGuy

Very good post Hwy, Thanks.

JVW

HG. You must really like Magnum PI. Reminded me of Higgens just on a continuous rant This old boy has some Problems


Mr Lemons

I've only subscribed one week and this is the second time that I've noticed you copying (stealing) from a website for, supposedly, your comments. That's called plagiarizing. It's intellectual theft. If you're going to steal content, then at least credit the sources. In this case it's from a blog entitled:



A history of American anti-immigrant bias, starting with Benjamin Franklin’s hatred of the Germans



By Annalisa Merelli (February 12, 2017).



Here's the link: https://qz.com/904933/a-history-of-american-anti-immigrant-bias-starting-with-benjamin-franklins-hatred-of-the-germans/


HavasuGuy

Facts of history that don't blame democrats or republicans - just facts...

HwyRovr

Lemonhead, is there nothing DOTs will not lie about? “I've only subscribed one week…” and yet your posts go back two weeks. As to “plagiarizing” where did I say what I posted was mine? You assumed and we all know what assuming does.


HavasuGuy

People seeking asylum are completely different than people crossing the border illegally. Trump's administration is changing the asylum requirements, locking up those that are seeking asylum, and not processing asylum seekers per past US laws. He is creating the illegal alien problem and riding on the back of the wave of prejudice that certain Americans have. God blessed America, look how we are thanking him...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.