IMMIGRANT

Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 8 months ago to History
300 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

By now, we are all familiar with the problems faced by America relative to illegal immigration. But, there was a time, early in the 20th century,
when immigration was welcome and sought after, with many square miles to fill. Just about all you needed to do in order to be an immigrant was was to be healthy enough to remain vertical. If you saw the beginning of "The Godfather Part 2" you got a pretty clear picture of Ellis Island. In Poland and Russia Jews were were confined to "shtetles" ( Little States) within or nearby a city. Unless they were either professional men, land owners,or shopkeepers who dealt in necessities (butchers, bakers, food suppliers , etc.) they were so poor that many of them literally starved to death.This is about my Grandfather on my mother's side.

My Grandpa, Manus (Mike) Sherman, his wife and daughter live just outside of Lublin the 4th largest city in Poland in what we call today the Ukraine. He was a non commissioned officer in the Polish army., from which he defected at the outset of World War 1.He changed his name in order to keep from getting caught.and his passport wouldn't sound any alarms because he stole the I.D. off of a dead soldier. It's about this part where I tell you a couple apochryphal stories that circulated among immigrants.There were dozens of themand here are just two: Jews hated the army. In those days, they had good reason to. They had no loyalty to the repressive country in which they lived and they were treated even worse in the army than they were as civilians.

At Ellis Island many of the men, especially those from Germanywho were fleeing the Kaiser's conscription were loathe to give their real names, and on one day they decided to all say "Ich fergessen" (I forgot.) The closest to that in the ears of a minimally educated official, was "Ed Ferguson." That day a hundred or so Ed Fergusons passed through Ell Island. Here's another one:: Before going on permanent AWOL many would steal the wallets of the dead soldiers, not for the money, but for the I.D.Hence our new family name on my mother's side became Shermann, the second n getting dropped when Grandpa got ajob.Another great incentive was that Ford was paying $5 a dayand once the rumor was confirmedyou couldn't hold back half of Europe from immigration. $5 was a month's income in Poland.

"Mike" had a few bucks saved up from many years of manual labor so he traveled to Detroit, where he got a job in construction, building the Rackham Memorial Building, a Marble palace in the cultural center which also contained the Institute of Arts and the Main Library, also marble clad masterpieces.During this time my mother developed rickets from malnutrition so, her mom sent her to live with her parents who owned a small farm. For the first time in her young life, she was able to eat decent food and lots of fresh vegetables and eventually she grew strong but never achieved what should have been her full height.Grandpa told me that he couldn't believe his good fortune. To be able to live a life that Americans took for granted. He got hired at Ford making more money than he ever imagined.Enough to pay rent, clothes, food, and even some to save.He loved Amerca and learned English as quickly as he could so he could become a citizen. By his accent some would call him Russian(same as A.R.'s). "I can tell by your accent tht you are Russian." His back would stiffen up and he'd look the person in the eye and say, "Not Russian, American!" While he was proud to be an American , he still retained some old country habits. He drank only Corby's whiskey when indulging because it was the cheapest rotgut. He also like Slivovitz, a very potent plum brandy. It was said that after uncorking the bottle, the fumes alone would make you drunk. He loved caviar. Not that expensive blsck stuff that you daintilly put on crackers, but the orange fish eggs that you could smell 2 blocks awa when he opened the jar.And that's the difference between 1920 and 2018. Every family had its own stories of coming to America. I have just skimmed the surface. I have had the good fortune of being 1st or 2nd generation depending on which side you look at. As I was growing up, I heard various aunts uncles and, of course, parentstell me how lucky I was to be born in America.They were right.
+.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 11.
  • Posted by 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I tend to agree with you. I have not come across any blatant immigrant trashing. In this case, I would request examples. I doubt if there are any.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Valley in Atlas Shrugged was neither someone visiting someone else's home nor "feudalist", and has nothing to do with immigration.

    The biggest problem today leading to further statism is the philosophy held by the country's own citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He reflects the attitude of Goldwater conservatives He, along with Ben Shapiro and others are very strict in their beliefs and I can see their attitudes. I am more willing to be corrected and to see another point of view, which in some cases gets me condemned as heretical.But if after I have studied a subject and come to a conclusion about it and even though I might be comfortable with it, i'm willing to be corrected. However, the correction better be good or fuggedaboudit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Damn! I could write a paper on either or both of these two posts.Replying to Lucky 9:'I"do not understand would be (As good as I can transliterate it) "Ich Varschaist nicht.".Those who monitor this blog are pretty easily spotted and the best thing is simply disregard them unless you think they were so cleverly written you are compelled to answer them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are, however, immigration limits in certain catagories.. Asians are more strictly limited than Italians etc. All based upon actuarial tables based on population.It is strictly bean counter methodology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I haven't come across that form of prejudice before, but I wouldn't doubt that it may exist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I once worked for a discount department store chain, I was the only Jew in the organization and it amused the manager to call me "Irish." But my parents didn't come from Ireland either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you consider it as a model of a society, then it is feudal. If you consider it as Midas Mulligan inviting a bunch of people over to his house for an extended stay, then sure. But it remains his house. They never can achieve ownership of a portion of it. One that happened, they would become a state -- at least as long as they mutually maintained the rules of secrecy.

    While I agree with the problems of the use of force, the reality is that it exists as a means of human interaction. You can promote a philosophy that rejects the initiation of force, but someone who does not accept your philosophy can do so.

    Any state built upon a common philosophy is vulnerable to the dilution of that philosophy via unlimited immigration of people who do not share it. And once they become the majority they will decide that it's time for a new deal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Feudalism does not mean private ownership. A landlord is not a "feudalist". Feudalism is a system for governing a nation in which private ownership is prohibited. The private Valley was not "essentially a feudalist structure". Everyone was there by choice and by invitation. They traded with each other and owned what they produced. There were no serfs.

    The purpose of the Valley for the plot in Atlas Shrugged was to illustrate how rational people interact with each other unencumbered by statism and altruism, not to describe or promote a utopian society, let alone feudalism. Ayn Rand did not struggle with that concept and she had no "unwillingness to accept the reality of force."

    The political consequences of the use of force by those who rejected reason are vividly described in the novel and elsewhere in her writing. It is why she advocated over and over the necessity of a philosophical revolution of reason and individualism to reverse the decline of this country into statism. It is a principle that a-philosophical libertarians and conservatives still do not grasp.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The feudal aspect is because others were allowed to live there and pay rent to the owner. That's essentially a feudal structure. So, yes it's private property -- a single person owns it.

    And even there she realized it had to be secret, otherwise the surrounding people would decide on what was an "appropriate" tax rate and gather it by force. The fact that such an artificial societal structure was necessary indicates a struggle with the concept -- at least to me.

    The biggest issue I see as I read in Rand's writing is the unwillingness to accept the reality of force. It can be morally wrong for the majority to decide to take your stuff, but if there are enough of them, they can do it. They may develop some philosophical basis to justify it in their own minds but in the end it's because they have to force to make it happen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Anti-immigrant" does not always mean "no immigration". Trump has no concept of individual rights which is part of why he is often so muddled and contradictory. Part of his opposition is to terrorists and criminals but he often makes no distinction.

    His wife didn't marry him "by right", but he doesn't even think in terms of rights. It is easy for him to bounce around claiming he isn't opposed to immigration while showing his general hostility and statist protectionism. The repeated claims that he "married an immigrant" is not an answer to criticism of his policies, let alone protectionist conservatives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mark Levin does not represent all conservatives, but as a popular conservative intellectual spokesman with followers in the millions he has enormous influence on the conservative movement. We often see his sound-bite positions echoed even on this forum.

    Levin is an example of a conservative who insists he not anti immigration even with his protectionism and hostility; he wants "legal immigration" to mean government-granted privilege based on a collectivist standard of what is good for the "nation" and "economy". He is an example of why one can't equate "anti-immigrant" with "no immigration".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeangalvinFL 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I know. Thank you.
    However, my post was immediately below so some might assume that it was me. Just wanted to clarify.
    Thanks for the heads up to all about the inappropriate downvote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand's comments on immigration pertained to normal migration against conservative economic forced protectionism. In that response she was not addressing self defense against invasion, which elsewhere discussed in the context of war. A "country" without borders has nothing defined to defend.

    As for normal immigration, the story of Sajid Javid shows an exceptional case. One doesn't have to be exceptional to have rights, and exceptional people can't be predicted in advance.

    The conservative trolls shouldn't mystify you; it has no logic but they're emotionally lashing out with no distinction made between "evil" and "me don't like".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Irish" may be an Irish first name, but "666" doesn't sound any more like an Irish surname than "B666" -- or are they the same because "B" your middle initial?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Valley in Atlas Shrugged had no immigration at all. It was private property by invitation only for a relatively small group. That is not "feudal" and has nothing to do with immigration to a country.

    Ayn Rand was not "obviously struggling" with immigration. She was not "struggling" at all. The response she gave was very clear. It was in response to the conservative position on protection, not invasion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeangalvinFL 6 years, 8 months ago
    My apologies to Herb for sidestepping his wonderful story for a discussion of the differences between illegal and legal immigration.
    That was not the initial purpose of your posting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeangalvinFL 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do think Trump's wife is a relevant fact.
    Many people criticize him for being against "immigration". That is untrue. He doesn't make himself clear quite often but he is against illegal immigration and for immigration.
    If he truly hated immigrants, then he never would have married one. Definitely relevant, in my opinion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ TomB666 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly! Irish were hired for lowly civil service jobs like police and garbage collection. And that does explain a lot - the Irish were not as stupid at the elite thought.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeangalvinFL 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The part about current law is a nightmare of bureaucracy and therefore unjust and unfair, I completely agree with.
    Mark Levin does not represent all Conservatives. If he rails against legal immigrants then he is a jackass.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the comment, I could say a lot but time-discipline (laziness) limits to-
    there should be no question that a nation can and should control its borders, does not Rand say something on those lines? It is not just standard-of-living self-interest, it is survival.

    Apart from that, if there are rules, people should be judged on character and results. This is what the story of Sajid Javid shows. The UK would have lost a truly outstanding immigrant if it had followed the usual stereotypes.

    Flummoxed= mystified. Those posts could maybe be disagreed with but were sensible and argued from an Objectivist position. I suppose that some here use downvotes to mean- do not like it, don't like your face, whereas a downvote should follow a deliberate mis-statement, something evil, or really bad spelling.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But yet the Gulch had very limited immigration. The mechanism, of course, is the Feudal nature of Midas Mulligan owning the entire valley making it private property.

    Rand was obviously struggling with the problem that no society that allows open immigration can maintain it's philosophical culture. The philosophies that the newcomers bring can overwhelm those of the founders.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo