Sessions praises eugenics racism
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/jeff-sessions-1924-immigration/512591/
Jeff Sessions's Unqualified Praise for a 1924 Immigration Law
Trump’s pick for attorney general made the remarks during an interview with Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon, now an adviser to the president-elect.
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Adam Serwer Jan 10, 2017
Jeff Sessions's Unqualified Praise for a 1924 Immigration Law
Trump’s pick for attorney general made the remarks during an interview with Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon, now an adviser to the president-elect.
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Adam Serwer Jan 10, 2017
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43*Stat.*153, enacted May*26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States as of the 1890 census, down from the 3% cap set by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which used the Census of 1910. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews.[1][2][3] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians.
According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[4] But though the Act aimed at preserving American racial homogeneity, it set no limits on immigration from other countries of the Americas.[5] Congressional opposition was minimal. According to Columbia University historian Mae Ngai, the 1924 Act put an end to a period where the United States essentially had open borders
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43*Stat.*153, enacted May*26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States as of the 1890 census, down from the 3% cap set by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which used the Census of 1910. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews.[1][2][3] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians.
According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[4] But though the Act aimed at preserving American racial homogeneity, it set no limits on immigration from other countries of the Americas.[5] Congressional opposition was minimal. According to Columbia University historian Mae Ngai, the 1924 Act put an end to a period where the United States essentially had open borders
evince
Truthmatters
People who supported the 1924 Immigration Act often used eugenics as justification for restriction of certain races or ethnicities of people in order to prevent the spread of feeblemindedness in American society.[16] Most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.[17] Samuel Gompers, a Jewish immigrant and founder of the AFL, supported the Act because he opposed the cheap labor that immigration represented, despite the fact that the Act would sharply reduce Jewish immigration.[18
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin")[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals.[4][5] The exact definition of eugenics has been a matter of debate since the term was coined.
Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy"[6] framed it as a social philosophy—that is, a philosophy with implications for social order. That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).
Alternatively, gene selection rather than "people selection" has recently been made possible through advances in genome editing.[7]
While eugenic principles have been practiced as far back in world history as ancient Greece, the modern history of eugenics began in the early 20th century when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom[8] and spread to many countries including the United States, Canada[9] and most European countries. In this period, eugenic ideas were espoused across the political spectrum. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies with the intent to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both "positive" measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and "negative" measures such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. People deemed unfit to reproduce often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges of different IQ tests, criminals and deviants, and members of disfavored minority groups. The eugenics movement became negatively associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials attempted to justify their human rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[10] In the decades following World War II, with the institution of human rights, many countries gradually began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries, among them the United States, continued to carry out forced sterilizations.
Since the 1980s and 1990s, when new assisted reproductive technology procedures became available such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), fear about a possible revival of eugenics and widening of the gap between the rich and the poor has emerged.
A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power at the time. Furthermore, negative eugenics in particular is considered by many to be a violation of basic human rights, which include the right to reproduction. Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression due to lower genetic variation.
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin")[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals.[4][5] The exact definition of eugenics has been a matter of debate since the term was coined.
Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy"[6] framed it as a social philosophy—that is, a philosophy with implications for social order. That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).
Alternatively, gene selection rather than "people selection" has recently been made possible through advances in genome editing.[7]
While eugenic principles have been practiced as far back in world history as ancient Greece, the modern history of eugenics began in the early 20th century when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom[8] and spread to many countries including the United States, Canada[9] and most European countries. In this period, eugenic ideas were espoused across the political spectrum. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies with the intent to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both "positive" measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and "negative" measures such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. People deemed unfit to reproduce often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges of different IQ tests, criminals and deviants, and members of disfavored minority groups. The eugenics movement became negatively associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials attempted to justify their human rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[10] In the decades following World War II, with the institution of human rights, many countries gradually began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries, among them the United States, continued to carry out forced sterilizations.
Since the 1980s and 1990s, when new assisted reproductive technology procedures became available such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), fear about a possible revival of eugenics and widening of the gap between the rich and the poor has emerged.
A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power at the time. Furthermore, negative eugenics in particular is considered by many to be a violation of basic human rights, which include the right to reproduction. Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression due to lower genetic variation.
81% of Dems voted FOR passage and 83% of Reps FOR passage in House
90% of Dems voted FOR passage and 87% of Reps FOR passage in Senate
Passed by what we would call a landslide by both parties....
It was just after the end of WWI and the world was a different place you fool
and still the #1 idiot on jpp......
Typical propaganda smear attempt by a left wing liberal Democrat about an issue irrelevant to
the politics of today.....
81% of Dems voted FOR passage and 83% of Reps FOR passage in House
90% of Dems voted FOR passage and 87% of Reps FOR passage in Senate
Passed by what we would call a landslide by both parties....
It was just after the end of WWI and the world was a different place you fool
and still the #1 idiot on jpp......
evince
Truthmatters
"In seven years we'll have the highest percentage of Americans, non-native born, since the founding of the Republic. Some people think we've always had these numbers, and it's not so, it's very unusual, it's a radical change. When the numbers reached about this high in 1924, the president and congress changed the policy, and it slowed down immigration significantly, we then assimilated through the 1965 and created really the solid middle class of America, with assimilated immigrants, and it was good for America. We passed a law that went far beyond what anybody realized in 1965, and we're on a path to surge far past what the situation was in 1924."
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You're talking to yourself again!
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Eugenics lol?
Two words: Margaret Sanger.
Two words: Margaret Sanger.
evince
Truthmatters
your answer is yes then?