Anti-immigrant rhetoric

[Tomef]

What do people think about the ideas expressed here, by leading anti-immigration politicians (directed mainly at Italian and Irish immigrants)? In what way do the ideas expressed here differ from the current rhetoric of characters like Trump?

Excerpt from "Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States":​

"The most important act in the great drama of annihilating this Republic, is now performing. Foreigners are the principal actors; but, we must not deceive ourselves, there are native citizens also enlisted in the unholy work. In the mysterious movements of the political elements, it is our duty to be watchful. Our soil is already invaded, our homes are already polluted, the enemies of our liberties are already in the midst of us....They have their establishments, their schools, and their press; they are quietly, but effectually, moulding public sentiment in conformity to the views of their leaders. Under the specious pretext of charity, their wily emissaries are already at work to secure the confidence of the unsuspecting."


"They are cutthroats, murderers, and a pestilence to our great American city."
This sentiment was widespread, and Italians were often depicted as inherently criminal and associated with the Mafia.

"Irish papists will burn down our homes and our churches unless we drive them from our shores."

"The scum of the earth has found a haven in our land. Italians… are here to drain the blood of the American Republic."

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do people think about the ideas expressed here, by leading anti-immigration politicians (directed mainly at Italian and Irish immigrants)? In what way do the ideas expressed here differ from the current rhetoric of characters like Trump?

Excerpt from "Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States":​

"The most important act in the great drama of annihilating this Republic, is now performing. Foreigners are the principal actors; but, we must not deceive ourselves, there are native citizens also enlisted in the unholy work. In the mysterious movements of the political elements, it is our duty to be watchful. Our soil is already invaded, our homes are already polluted, the enemies of our liberties are already in the midst of us....They have their establishments, their schools, and their press; they are quietly, but effectually, moulding public sentiment in conformity to the views of their leaders. Under the specious pretext of charity, their wily emissaries are already at work to secure the confidence of the unsuspecting."


"They are cutthroats, murderers, and a pestilence to our great American city."
This sentiment was widespread, and Italians were often depicted as inherently criminal and associated with the Mafia.

"Irish papists will burn down our homes and our churches unless we drive them from our shores."

"The scum of the earth has found a haven in our land. Italians… are here to drain the blood of the American Republic."

And yet it appears significant numbers of the Irish and Italians became police officers.........

 

[Estro Felino]

And yet it appears significant numbers of the Irish and Italians became police officers.........

Not to mention Corey Comperatore, a firefighter that died because of the anti-Trump hatred spread by the Left.
A hatred destroying the young generations.

 

[Tomef]

And yet it appears significant numbers of the Irish and Italians became police officers.........

What's your point, in regard to this thread?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not to mention Corey Comperatore, a firefighter that died because of the anti-Trump hatred spread by the Left.
A hatred destroying the young generations.

So please link to a site that explains what is officially know about the motive of the shooter. And remember I can check your link if you choose to provide one.

 

[Estro Felino]

So please link to a site that explains what is officially know about the motive of the shooter. And remember I can check your link if you choose to provide one.

I think that a person who shoots at Trump that's because he hates his guts.
Right?

 

[Estro Felino]

What's your point, in regard to this thread?

My point is that the anti-immigration rethoric of today is because of safety...first of all.

Back then it was because of prejudice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think that a person who shoots at Trump that's because he hates his guts.
Right?

Unknown as such.

 

[Audie]

What do people think about the ideas expressed here, by leading anti-immigration politicians (directed mainly at Italian and Irish immigrants)? In what way do the ideas expressed here differ from the current rhetoric of characters like Trump?

Excerpt from "Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States":​

"The most important act in the great drama of annihilating this Republic, is now performing. Foreigners are the principal actors; but, we must not deceive ourselves, there are native citizens also enlisted in the unholy work. In the mysterious movements of the political elements, it is our duty to be watchful. Our soil is already invaded, our homes are already polluted, the enemies of our liberties are already in the midst of us....They have their establishments, their schools, and their press; they are quietly, but effectually, moulding public sentiment in conformity to the views of their leaders. Under the specious pretext of charity, their wily emissaries are already at work to secure the confidence of the unsuspecting."


"They are cutthroats, murderers, and a pestilence to our great American city."
This sentiment was widespread, and Italians were often depicted as inherently criminal and associated with the Mafia.

"Irish papists will burn down our homes and our churches unless we drive them from our shores."

"The scum of the earth has found a haven in our land. Italians… are here to drain the blood of the American Republic."

Is Trump a person, or a 'character"?

How about Irish? Are they characters?

 

[Tomef]

Is Trump a person, or a 'character"?

How about Irish? Are they characters?

I don’t get what you mean.

Trump is a person - also a ‘character’ in the sense of a person who is outlandish / untrustworthy. I don’t think you can characterise some whole nation like that, every place has its share of characters, though.

The point is, if it isn’t clear, that the same kinds of people who were tailing against immigrants from one part of the world 150 years ago (or so) are getting worked up about immigrants from some other part of the world today. I’m interested in whether anyone thinks this is ‘different’ somehow, the situation today.

 

[Stevicus]

What do people think about the ideas expressed here, by leading anti-immigration politicians (directed mainly at Italian and Irish immigrants)? In what way do the ideas expressed here differ from the current rhetoric of characters like Trump?

Excerpt from "Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States":​

"The most important act in the great drama of annihilating this Republic, is now performing. Foreigners are the principal actors; but, we must not deceive ourselves, there are native citizens also enlisted in the unholy work. In the mysterious movements of the political elements, it is our duty to be watchful. Our soil is already invaded, our homes are already polluted, the enemies of our liberties are already in the midst of us....They have their establishments, their schools, and their press; they are quietly, but effectually, moulding public sentiment in conformity to the views of their leaders. Under the specious pretext of charity, their wily emissaries are already at work to secure the confidence of the unsuspecting."


"They are cutthroats, murderers, and a pestilence to our great American city."
This sentiment was widespread, and Italians were often depicted as inherently criminal and associated with the Mafia.

"Irish papists will burn down our homes and our churches unless we drive them from our shores."

"The scum of the earth has found a haven in our land. Italians… are here to drain the blood of the American Republic."

Just for clarification, this was written in 1835 by Samuel Morse (inventor of the telegraph). Such rhetoric has always been around in one form or another. It clearly didn't have much of an effect on quashing U.S. immigration policy, neither then nor now. Although there have been periods when immigration was severely curtailed such as the immigration act of 1924.

A key issue related to immigration has been the concept of assimilation, in which immigrants were expected and pressured to assimilate to the Anglo-American culture which was dominant in the U.S. Henry Ford advocated for schools for his immigrant employees to learn English and U.S. civics. A lot of immigrants from Europe and elsewhere changed their names to make it sound more American (as did my own ancestors).

The idea was that, as long as immigrants learned English, assimilated, and conformed to patriotic American values, then they no longer would be viewed as a threat. This also corresponded to the idea of the "melting pot," which implied that whatever immigrants were no longer mattered, since they were being remolded and reshaped into loyal Americans.

That seems to point up the major complaint nowadays, as many immigrants are perceived as not assimilating well enough and not demonstrating patriotism and unquestioned loyalty to America. A common thing one might hear is "If my ancestors could learn English when they got here, so can these immigrants today!"

That seems to be a major sticky point these days, as there has been a reaction against America's former push towards assimilation and countered with a push towards cultural diversity and multilingualism. On the other hand, there are those who see a refusal to assimilate as an unfriendly act. They used to say "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," and those who don't blend into the background tend to stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[Tomef]

Just for clarification, this was written in 1835 by Samuel Morse (inventor of the telegraph). Such rhetoric has always been around in one form or another. It clearly didn't have much of an effect on quashing U.S. immigration policy, neither then nor now. Although there have been periods when immigration was severely curtailed such as the immigration act of 1924.

A key issue related to immigration has been the concept of assimilation, in which immigrants were expected and pressured to assimilate to the Anglo-American culture which was dominant in the U.S. Henry Ford advocated for schools for his immigrant employees to learn English and U.S. civics. A lot of immigrants from Europe and elsewhere changed their names to make it sound more American (as did my own ancestors).

The idea was that, as long as immigrants learned English, assimilated, and conformed to patriotic American values, then they no longer would be viewed as a threat. This also corresponded to the idea of the "melting pot," which implied that whatever immigrants were no longer mattered, since they were being remolded and reshaped into loyal Americans.

That seems to point up the major complaint nowadays, as many immigrants are perceived as not assimilating well enough and not demonstrating patriotism and unquestioned loyalty to America. A common thing one might hear is "If my ancestors could learn English when they got here, so can these immigrants today!"

That seems to be a major sticky point these days, as there has been a reaction against America's former push towards assimilation and countered with a push towards cultural diversity and multilingualism. On the other hand, there are those who see a refusal to assimilate as an unfriendly act. They used to say "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," and those who don't blend into the background tend to stick out like a sore thumb.

Yes. The question is, in what way, if any, is this different from the rhetoric pushed by Trump (etc) today.

 

[Audie]

I don’t get what you mean.

Trump is a person - also a ‘character’ in the sense of a person who is outlandish / untrustworthy. I don’t think you can characterise some whole nation like that, every place has its share of characters, though.

The point is, if it isn’t clear, that the same kinds of people who were tailing against immigrants from one part of the world 150 years ago (or so) are getting worked up about immigrants from some other part of the world today. I’m interested in whether anyone thinks this is ‘different’ somehow, the situation today.

You find him to be outlandish, use
prejudicial language, and appear to equate
Trumps view on immigration as practiced today
with the words you quoted.
Am I correct so far?

Did you mean " other part", or other part(s), or all parts?

 

[Audie]

Yes. The question is, in what way, if any, is this different from the rhetoric pushed by Trump (etc) today.

Do you know of any difference?

 

[Estro Felino]

Trump has never mentioned that all Hispanic migrants are bad.

That example is light years away from Trump's speeches which point out that there are so many Hispanic people who totally assimilated.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes. The question is, in what way, if any, is this different from the rhetoric pushed by Trump (etc) today.

The targeted groups may be different. I don't recall Trump saying anything about Irish or Italians or "papists."

 

[Audie]

The targeted groups may be different. I don't recall Trump saying anything about Irish or Italians or "papists."

What groups are targeted, and why?

 

[Stevicus]

What groups are targeted, and why?

I don't know of any groups targeted by Trump (although I haven't read all his speeches). But among the general hoi polloi, one might hear rhetoric about "Mexicans pouring over the border" and things like that. 9/11 also prompted many Americans to target Muslims as a potential threat and have wanted to limit their immigration on that basis. In fact, I recall Trump received a lot of criticism over what many perceived as a ban on Muslim immigration.

 

[Tomef]

You find him to be outlandish, use
prejudicial language,

Yes, that reflects my view of Trump.

and appear to equate
Trumps view on immigration as practiced today
with the words you quoted.
Am I correct so far?

The kind of language used is similar - Trump has frequently used the same kind of inflammatory language to describe immigrants today. My question is whether or not anyone considers the current situation to be different in some sense.

Did you mean " other part", or other part(s), or all parts?

'some other part' = another part (of the world).

 

[Audie]

I don't know of any groups targeted by Trump (although I haven't read all his speeches). But among the general hoi polloi, one might hear rhetoric about "Mexicans pouring over the border" and things like that. 9/11 also prompted many Americans to target Muslims as a potential threat and have wanted to limit their immigration on that basis. In fact, I recall Trump received a lot of criticism over what many perceived as a ban on Muslim immigration.

Wasn't it a proposed ban on unvetted immigrants from
Islamic countries ? "Util we know who they
are"?

Like actually observe existing laws.