Much weaker. Traditionally, America has drawn much of its strength from being the place that people have immigrated to. Mainly, this allowed them to become huge after the Napoleonic Wars.
Also, anyone who thinks America has more racial tension now compared to 19-fucking-65 has some weird ideas about history.
Before Hart Celler there were no restrictions on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, were there?
Then there would have still been problems with Mexicans.I don't think so
All too often, I hear people on tv say, "From when Lyndon signed the Civil Rights Act until Trump announced his candidacy, there were no racial tensions".Also, anyone who thinks America has more racial tension now compared to 19-fucking-65 has some weird ideas about history.
The potential of 3 or 4 sided social conflict between whites blacks hispanics, and asian communities is an order of magnitude more complex than trying to remedy inequality between a 90% white majority and an African American community that's been roughly 10% of the US population over the course of the twentieth century. The LA riots back in the '90s started with whites acquitted after beating up a black person, then boiled over into looting of Korean owned business, as well as conflict between blacks and hispanics.Much weaker. Traditionally, America has drawn much of its strength from being the place that people have immigrated to. Mainly, this allowed them to become huge after the Napoleonic Wars.
Also, anyone who thinks America has more racial tension now compared to 19-fucking-65 has some weird ideas about history.
It all started over a Korean lady shooting a black girl thinking she was shoplifting, then it turned to corrupt cops beating up a black guy, which the former got acquitted. Then when the riots erupt, you got an angry community going after the Koreans who then transformed into Roof Koreans, etc. Things spiraled out of control at that time. Without the 1965 Immigration Act, the riots would still happen but without a lot of property damage happening to Koreans and other minorities since their numbers won't be ballooned without it.The LA riots back in the '90s started with whites acquitted after beating up a black person, then boiled over into looting of Korean owned business, as well as conflict between blacks and hispanics.
Immigration from anywhere but western Europe was curtailed by 1924, after the post WWI economic downturn.Something I was watching a week or so ago made the point that the number of immigrants post 1945 is at record lows compared to the previous 150 years. All those grey beards complaining about the good old days grew up in a historical oddity.
Was Japan totalitarian between 1945 and 2018 until they passed a recent law to allow for more immigration? It's possible to argue against a policy without being this hyperbolic.So another hate inspired post by a now banned person who thinks that we get rid of anyone who came after 1965 because that was when the Vietnamese, south americans, muslims and Asians arrived s we be happy and signing kumbaya in an idealistic society oppressing the blacks, Latin Americans and Asians who had made it here before the ban. For only the Europeans are good attitude. I being Portuguese was considered persona non-grata till after the WW2 for Southern Europeans were not considered good stock and banned between WW1 and WW2.
This would be a sorry state totalitarian country poorer I think for immigrant countries have grown rich from the hard work of the immigrants. Look at the number of immigrants who are collecting social assistance and willing to work any job including two jobs and then look at the ones who are here for multiple generations and not willing to work in menial jobs. Who would work in the ohio animal slaughter couses, work in the farms?
No they were not but the Koreans that were there left after war and to compare Japan to US is little off. 99% of Japan are Japanese. They started bringing over non-japanese in small numbers to help in some industries.Was Japan totalitarian between 1945 and 2018 until they passed a recent law to allow for more immigration? It's possible to argue against a policy without being this hyperbolic.
The immigration restrictions of the 1920s only barred Europeans and Asians, the US had de facto open borders with Canada and Latin America until the quota system in 1965. The lack of a numerical cap or quota from Latin America was a concession to the employers of migrant labor in the Southwest, if the pre-1965 rules had continued America could've had a larger wave of Latin American immigration than OTL.