NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.
From: Joseph Morabito (e-mail him)
I came across this 2006 interview with Teddy Kennedy regarding the role he played in the 1965 Immigration Act. This may be a useful link to post for VDARE.com users.
Kennedy was asked this question:
"What's striking about the debate in 1965 is how so many people did not expect a huge increase in immigration, or a change in the demographics of the nation. You told Congress that immigration levels would remain 'substantially the same,' and that 'the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.' Why weren't these changes foreseen?"
[Q&A: Sen. Kennedy on Immigration, Then & Now, by Jennifer Ludden, May 9, 2006]
James Fulford writes: After considerable waffling when Kennedy tried to change the subject of the immigration numbers, and the problem of legal immigration, to " antagonism, frustration and anger " caused by illegal immigration and the wonders of the hardworking store owner whose " child is serving in the armed forces of the country", we get this question and answer.
"Some have suggested it was a mistake to make family reunification the main purpose of our immigration law. They say perhaps we should have a system more like Canada's, which lets people in based largely on their skills. How do you respond to these criticisms?
KENNEDY: I think our tradition of the Statue of Liberty is to be willing to accept the unwashed as well as the highly skilled. There are a lot of people who haven't had opportunities in other places as a result of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes and discrimination. Are we going to say we refuse to let any of those individuals come in because we've got someone who has happened to have a more advantaged situation? I'm not sure that's what this country is all about."
How's that working out for America?