Grappling with the Citizenship Question

[DavidM]

The 20th Century brought massive waves of immigration around the globe which, in turn, created concerns in most of the receiving countries. In 1917 the United States passed the Emmigration Act of 1917 which imposed literacy tests and taxes on immigrants and banned immigrants deemed “undesirables”—essentially any sick, disabled, or criminal members of society. Restriction soon came to include specific races and ethnicities; all immigrants from a region termed the Asiatic Barred Zone (modern day India, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Southeast Asia and the Asian-Pacific islands) were blocked.
A second wave of restrictions, supposedly as an effort to protect the nation from Bolsheviks was passed.
And in 1921 Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act, which set numerical quotas for the number of immigrants coming to the United States. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 further reduced the number of allowed immigrants.

Similar measures were taken in Britain with the Aliens Act of 1905 and the Aliens Restriction Act of 1914. Canada followed in 1910 and with a more restrictive act in 1919.

During the German Empire and the Weimar Republic, Germany was one of the countries most sought after by Jews who were leaving eastern, central and south-eastern Europe. The first big wave of Jewish refugees to Germany from the east reached was a result of the civil disturbances in Russian in 1905

During the World War I second wave of Jewish immigrants from the East poured into Germany this wave settled mainly in Central Europe, Germany and Austria. "Hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews fled to Vienna and Berlin: children of foreign culture, speaking a foreign language, upholding foreign customs and beliefs." The historian Anne-Christin Saß discovered that in the second half of the 1920s in Berlin, Jews were prevented from continuing to move further west in Europe or even as far as the US, as they had originally intended; thus Berlin developed into a world Jewish center.

The years after the end of World War I were chaotic with large movements of people flowing into Germany from
Eastern Europe and the dismembered Austro-Hungarian Empire. In 1920, the Bavarian government opened the first immigration detention site in Germany: Fort Prinz Karl in Ingolstadt, about an hour away from Munich. Simultaneously, the Prussian government also opened two immigration detention sites – one in Cottbus in Eastern Germany and one in Stargard in present-day Poland. Who "belonged" in Germany and who should not was as serious a question in 1925 as it is in the
United States today.

Against this background the National Socialist government sought to define who was to have rights and privileges of
German citizenship; passing the Reich Citizenship Law in 1935. The law was simple with two fundamental ideas-
A subject of the state is one who belongs to the protective union of the German Reich, and who, therefore, has specific obligations to the Reich.
and
A citizen of the Reich may be only one who is of German or kindred blood, and who, through his behaviour, shows that he is both desirous and personally fit to serve loyally the German people and the Reich.

https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/re ... -law-1935/

There was a Supplementary Decree in November 1935 which read
“Article 1. Until further provisions concerning citizenship papers, all subjects of German or kindred blood who possessed the right to vote in the Reichstag elections when the Citizenship Law came into effect, shall, for the present, possess the rights of Reich citizens. The same shall be true of those upon whom the Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy to the Fuhrer, shall confer citizenship.

Jewish-Germans were particularly mentioned for protection;
The provisions of Article I shall apply also to subjects who are of mixed Jewish blood.
The legal definition of a "Jew" was restricted
A Jew is an individual who is descended from at least three grandparents who were, racially, full Jews.
https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/re ... cree-1935/

[borjastick]

All very good but what is your question or point?

[Scott]

Who "belonged" in Germany and who should not was as serious a question in 1925 as it is in the United States today.

All very good but what is your question or point?

It all seems pretty on-point to me.

I'd like to see and hear more Research and Discussion about immigration ─ Jus Sanguinis & Jus Soli ─ and the 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws, and so on.

I used to think that the 1935 Race Laws, where Jews lost birthright German citizenship during the Third Reich, went too far. Now I'm not so sure.

Jews even today are a supermajority involved in various Cultural Marxist efforts worldwide to promote open-borders, unchecked immigration, and especially from the Third World ─ and to promote race-mixing in general.

An especially obnoxious academic Jew, the late Noel Ignatiev ─ who wrote the 1995 book How the Irish Became White and edited various journals ─ even called for the elimination of the White race.

The Immigration Act of 1790 defined naturalized U.S. citizens as "free White person(s) of good character."

And today, the U.S. Supreme Court has been debating Birthright Citizenship, which President Trump would like to eliminate in order to control the borders.

This might ultimately require a Constitutional Amendment in my opinion, but it is a worthy effort on the part of the President.

The United States went to "GPS citizenship" after the Civil War in order to utilize the Negro as a battering ram against the defeated South.

Although the 14th Amendment did many things that I approve of, and which should have been written into Federal law in 1790 to ensure that the nation was not a Confederacy of Sovereign states, this was literally imposed upon the South when White men were disfranchised for having taken part in "Rebellion."
And one of the most important principles of the Republic, Jus Sanguinis was callously exchanged for Jus Soli in the 14th Amendment and then the 15th which made Negroes into full citizens ─ voters and jurors, etc. ─ which even Mr. Lincoln had not wanted.

This unfortunate legacy is still the case in the United States today, particularly since the 1960s, except that the "Negro Problem" is literally now everywhere and increasing.

We can see evidence of this quite cogently related to violent crime statistics where the per capital Negro crime rate is massive ─ while most of the Establishment elites, (((Hollywood))), and the overwhelmingly Marxist academia ─ all have a weird fetish for the Negro bordering on idolatry, as exemplified in the 2020 Saint George Floyd case.

Jews are involved in this "race treason," as Ignatiev would say with a touch of pride, and his Tribe are involved right up to their necks.

This begs the question whether Jews are "White." I would have to say that those like Professor Ignatiev deserve to be deloused and sent on a one-way express flight to Israel.

Thoughts?

[Stubble]

We disagree on the issue of the compact, other than that Scott, I'd have to say we agree.

Well, another exception being that I know jews are Non-Whites. They are Levantine Negros.

I could go off on a tangent about the jew, cultural Marxism and jewish culture, but, this isn't the right forum for it. If pressed to say something on this forum, I would quote a jew and say judaism is communism.

https://odysee.com/@Lebensraum:6/FromMo ... Ot8UMAvf:4

[Scott]

I don't agree with Mr. Lincoln (LINK) that the United States was founded as a "Proposition" Nation, but I do think that the laws should have been more explicit about affirming what is called White Supremacy.

I would repeal the 15th Amendment and add one to spell out citizenship along the lines of 1790 and end "GPS citizenship."

I would also repeal the 17th Amendment so that U.S. Senators are elected again by state legislatures instead of with deference to the Globalist financial interest-group plutocracy that is dominant for elections today. Teh U.S. senate concerns itself with Foreign Policy and ratified treaties as the law of the land, so this is very important for Nationalism.

And I don't have anything in principle against the 16th Amendment that allowed direct income tax collection, which was desired by Populists in the day so that the tax code could be "progressive" and the Feds would charge higher incomes at a higher tax rate.

But Federal income tax needs to be limited somehow, say to less than ten percent. In the 1950s the highest income tax bracket was something like a 90 percent rate for high earners, which is how a flash-in-the-pan B-movie actor like Ronald Reagan was turned from a Democrat into a Goldwater Republican.

Anyway, the Third Reich used almost all of the existing laws of the Weimar era, which is one reason why that they did not go off the deep end in revolutionary fervor. So it is very important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

i would argue that independence was necessary from Albion in 1776 because Crown and Parliament were enforcing the Traty of Paris of 1763, which proscribed American Westward migration in order to protect Frenh and Indian lands from Daniel Boone and his American settler friends.

One of my ancestors had immgrated from Scotland in the 17th century and got a Revolutionary War land grant from General Washington for services rendered and the family settled in Tennessee, Illinois, and Arkansas before the Civl War. None of them owned any Negroes. My Grandmother's grandfather was orphaned by the Civil War ─ his father died of starvation and smallpox in a Yankee PoW camp in Illinois, and the boy in question became a blackmith as a teenager in the rough mining trade in Colorado.

I don't typically hold Libertarian views, and I dislike it when U.S. History and Constitutional Law is taught that way.

I think a democratic-republic is good for stability and eventually resolving most conflicts. But it is a system totally out of its depth for resolving Systemic conflicts, such as the Negro Question, and now the Jewish Question. At best the legacy systems can kick this problem down the road like a discarded can. That is what happened with the Civil War, and the outcome wasn't pretty.

Some Systemic problems do require radical or comprehensively deep-rooted measures. That is why I welcome open-debate.

I think Founding Father Alexander Hamilton was increasingly disappointed that the new Republic narrowly lacked sufficient authority to survive its systemic chalenges. This may have influenced his ill-advised decison to engage in a duel with the Vice President in 1804 and get killed. Hamilton's doubts proved correct four-score and whatever years after the Declaration of Independence.

Still, on immigration, the country was in relatively good shape until the turn of the 20th century. Then things started to change. Oy Vey.