One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Birth of ‘Illegal’ Immigration
Page 1 of 2 next>
Oct 31, 2018 22:18:43   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-immigration

For a long time, it wasn't possible to immigrate “Illegally" to the U.S.

Until the late 19th century, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.

American immigration didn’t really begin until the late 1700s, when the United States became an independent nation. Before that, Africans had unwillingly entered the Americas as enslaved peoples and Europeans had entered as settlers—which is something totally different. While immigrants are beholden to the laws of the land they migrate to, settlers come to disrupt the current system and implement their own laws, write the scholars Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang.

But once the U.S. made its Constitution the new law of the land, immigrants flocked to the country with few restrictions. This didn’t mean that they were welcomed in the “New World.” In the beginning, when immigrants came mostly from northern and western Europe, anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment were rampant. By the mid- to late-19th century, people from southern and eastern Europe as well as China were coming over, and Americans resented the presence of Chinese, Italians, and more Catholics.

Although some states like California passed local immigration laws during this time, these laws either weren’t well enforced or were thrown out by courts, says Madeline Y. Hsu, a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. In fact, there were no federal laws governing who could enter and who couldn’t until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

At the time, Chinese people worked in gold mines, factories, railroads, and agriculture, especially on the West Coast. Although these immigrants made up only .002 percent of the U.S. population, white Americans blamed them for low wages and other economic problems. To placate economic and racial anxieties, the radical exclusion act banned almost all immigration from China, making only a few exceptions for special groups like students and diplomats. In addition, the Immigration Act passed that same year banned people who were poor, mentally ill, or convicted of crimes from entering the country.

Because only a very narrow group of Chinese people could legally immigrate, “the acting presumption was that if you’re Chinese you must have come in illegally,” Hsu says. “Chinese become the only group required to carry around certificates of residence, which are intended to show—to document—that they have in fact entered legally.” A decade later, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act banned most immigration from Asia, as well as immigration by prostitutes, polygamists, anarchists, and people with contagious diseases.

Asian exclusion continued with the 1924 Immigration Act, which banned all people who could not become naturalized citizens per the 1790 Naturalization Act. That naturalization law had originally said that only free white people could become naturalized citizens. Yet by 1924, previously excluded groups like Mexicans, black Americans, and Native Americans had won citizenship rights, and the law really only applied to Asians.

But the biggest change the 1924 act made to immigration policy was introducing numerical caps or quotas based on country of origin. These quotas gave enormous preference to people from northern and western Europe over those from southern and eastern parts of the continent. Turns out, the previous restrictions on Asian immigrants had made “very little impact on the growing levels of immigration to the United States,” Hsu says, because the vast majority of immigrants came from Europe. These new quotas were meant to address “a sense of crisis” that America was accepting too many immigrants, particularly too many non-Anglo Saxon ones.

The 1924 act resurfaced in the news in September 2017 when United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the U.S. would end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a policy to give people who came to the U.S. as undocumented children a legal avenue to stay. Sessions had earlier stated that the 1924 Immigration Act “was good for America.”

But according to Mae M. Ngai, a professor of Asian American studies and history at Columbia University, “the 1924 act is considered almost universally to be a stain on our history.”

It’s an “obviously racist act,” she says. “It ranked people from all over the world on a kind of hierarchy of desirability based on their race and national origin … There is no controversy over that.”

The 1924 quota system remained largely in place until the 1960s, when a new law established a new system. Each year, there is a cap on the total number of visas that the U.S. can issue. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. cannot issue more than seven percent of the total allowable visas to one nation.

Before this change in 1965, there had been no numeric caps on immigration within the Americas. So when the U.S. decided that it would only take a certain percentage of people from each nation per year, it was the first time the U.S. had put an official cap on Mexican immigration.

Prior to this, Mexican immigrants freely, and commonly, found work in the United States. Yet after the Hart-Celler Immigration Act was passed, “Whole groups of migrants from Mexico and Latin America whose entrance to the U.S. would have been considered legal before 1965 suddenly became illegal,” writesJane Hong, a history professor at Occidental College, in The L.A. Times.

“There’s a lot of talk about the DACA students and [accusations] that it’s an unlawful program,” Hsu says. “The problem with that is that you can always change laws,” she continues. “Laws are constantly changed in order to accommodate actual circumstances.”

For example, it is a fact that Mexicans have already been immigrating to and living in the U.S. for a very long time. Whether lawmakers choose to consider that reality is another story.

By Becky Little

Reply
Oct 31, 2018 22:50:44   #
Sicilianthing
 
slatten49 wrote:
https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-immigration

For a long time, it wasn't possible to immigrate “Illegally" to the U.S.

Until the late 19th century, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.

American immigration didn’t really begin until the late 1700s, when the United States became an independent nation. Before that, Africans had unwillingly entered the Americas as enslaved peoples and Europeans had entered as settlers—which is something totally different. While immigrants are beholden to the laws of the land they migrate to, settlers come to disrupt the current system and implement their own laws, write the scholars Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang.

But once the U.S. made its Constitution the new law of the land, immigrants flocked to the country with few restrictions. This didn’t mean that they were welcomed in the “New World.” In the beginning, when immigrants came mostly from northern and western Europe, anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment were rampant. By the mid- to late-19th century, people from southern and eastern Europe as well as China were coming over, and Americans resented the presence of Chinese, Italians, and more Catholics.

Although some states like California passed local immigration laws during this time, these laws either weren’t well enforced or were thrown out by courts, says Madeline Y. Hsu, a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. In fact, there were no federal laws governing who could enter and who couldn’t until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

At the time, Chinese people worked in gold mines, factories, railroads, and agriculture, especially on the West Coast. Although these immigrants made up only .002 percent of the U.S. population, white Americans blamed them for low wages and other economic problems. To placate economic and racial anxieties, the radical exclusion act banned almost all immigration from China, making only a few exceptions for special groups like students and diplomats. In addition, the Immigration Act passed that same year banned people who were poor, mentally ill, or convicted of crimes from entering the country.

Because only a very narrow group of Chinese people could legally immigrate, “the acting presumption was that if you’re Chinese you must have come in illegally,” Hsu says. “Chinese become the only group required to carry around certificates of residence, which are intended to show—to document—that they have in fact entered legally.” A decade later, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act banned most immigration from Asia, as well as immigration by prostitutes, polygamists, anarchists, and people with contagious diseases.

Asian exclusion continued with the 1924 Immigration Act, which banned all people who could not become naturalized citizens per the 1790 Naturalization Act. That naturalization law had originally said that only free white people could become naturalized citizens. Yet by 1924, previously excluded groups like Mexicans, black Americans, and Native Americans had won citizenship rights, and the law really only applied to Asians.

But the biggest change the 1924 act made to immigration policy was introducing numerical caps or quotas based on country of origin. These quotas gave enormous preference to people from northern and western Europe over those from southern and eastern parts of the continent. Turns out, the previous restrictions on Asian immigrants had made “very little impact on the growing levels of immigration to the United States,” Hsu says, because the vast majority of immigrants came from Europe. These new quotas were meant to address “a sense of crisis” that America was accepting too many immigrants, particularly too many non-Anglo Saxon ones.

The 1924 act resurfaced in the news in September 2017 when United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the U.S. would end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a policy to give people who came to the U.S. as undocumented children a legal avenue to stay. Sessions had earlier stated that the 1924 Immigration Act “was good for America.”

But according to Mae M. Ngai, a professor of Asian American studies and history at Columbia University, “the 1924 act is considered almost universally to be a stain on our history.”

It’s an “obviously racist act,” she says. “It ranked people from all over the world on a kind of hierarchy of desirability based on their race and national origin … There is no controversy over that.”

The 1924 quota system remained largely in place until the 1960s, when a new law established a new system. Each year, there is a cap on the total number of visas that the U.S. can issue. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. cannot issue more than seven percent of the total allowable visas to one nation.

Before this change in 1965, there had been no numeric caps on immigration within the Americas. So when the U.S. decided that it would only take a certain percentage of people from each nation per year, it was the first time the U.S. had put an official cap on Mexican immigration.

Prior to this, Mexican immigrants freely, and commonly, found work in the United States. Yet after the Hart-Celler Immigration Act was passed, “Whole groups of migrants from Mexico and Latin America whose entrance to the U.S. would have been considered legal before 1965 suddenly became illegal,” writesJane Hong, a history professor at Occidental College, in The L.A. Times.

“There’s a lot of talk about the DACA students and [accusations] that it’s an unlawful program,” Hsu says. “The problem with that is that you can always change laws,” she continues. “Laws are constantly changed in order to accommodate actual circumstances.”

For example, it is a fact that Mexicans have already been immigrating to and living in the U.S. for a very long time. Whether lawmakers choose to consider that reality is another story.

By Becky Little
https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-... (show quote)


>>>>

I read the whole thing, understood and I remember studying this stuff long ago in my travels somewhere.

Fast forward today, the laws are loose and do not protect Americans rather the newly improvised Quotas foiste on us by the United Nations are a violation of our Sovereignty which poses a whole other set of problems we’re fighting in this camp.

It is my conclusion no longer an opinion that Immigration both legal and illegal has run it’s course and is damaging our society with non assimilating ideologies.

I’m hoping our latest round of throttling has gotten through to Trump, we’re about to find out.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 09:17:15   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
slatten49 wrote:
https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-immigration

For a long time, it wasn't possible to immigrate “Illegally" to the U.S.

Until the late 19th century, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.

American immigration didn’t really begin until the late 1700s, when the United States became an independent nation. Before that, Africans had unwillingly entered the Americas as enslaved peoples and Europeans had entered as settlers—which is something totally different. While immigrants are beholden to the laws of the land they migrate to, settlers come to disrupt the current system and implement their own laws, write the scholars Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang.

But once the U.S. made its Constitution the new law of the land, immigrants flocked to the country with few restrictions. This didn’t mean that they were welcomed in the “New World.” In the beginning, when immigrants came mostly from northern and western Europe, anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment were rampant. By the mid- to late-19th century, people from southern and eastern Europe as well as China were coming over, and Americans resented the presence of Chinese, Italians, and more Catholics.

Although some states like California passed local immigration laws during this time, these laws either weren’t well enforced or were thrown out by courts, says Madeline Y. Hsu, a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. In fact, there were no federal laws governing who could enter and who couldn’t until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

At the time, Chinese people worked in gold mines, factories, railroads, and agriculture, especially on the West Coast. Although these immigrants made up only .002 percent of the U.S. population, white Americans blamed them for low wages and other economic problems. To placate economic and racial anxieties, the radical exclusion act banned almost all immigration from China, making only a few exceptions for special groups like students and diplomats. In addition, the Immigration Act passed that same year banned people who were poor, mentally ill, or convicted of crimes from entering the country.

Because only a very narrow group of Chinese people could legally immigrate, “the acting presumption was that if you’re Chinese you must have come in illegally,” Hsu says. “Chinese become the only group required to carry around certificates of residence, which are intended to show—to document—that they have in fact entered legally.” A decade later, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act banned most immigration from Asia, as well as immigration by prostitutes, polygamists, anarchists, and people with contagious diseases.

Asian exclusion continued with the 1924 Immigration Act, which banned all people who could not become naturalized citizens per the 1790 Naturalization Act. That naturalization law had originally said that only free white people could become naturalized citizens. Yet by 1924, previously excluded groups like Mexicans, black Americans, and Native Americans had won citizenship rights, and the law really only applied to Asians.

But the biggest change the 1924 act made to immigration policy was introducing numerical caps or quotas based on country of origin. These quotas gave enormous preference to people from northern and western Europe over those from southern and eastern parts of the continent. Turns out, the previous restrictions on Asian immigrants had made “very little impact on the growing levels of immigration to the United States,” Hsu says, because the vast majority of immigrants came from Europe. These new quotas were meant to address “a sense of crisis” that America was accepting too many immigrants, particularly too many non-Anglo Saxon ones.

The 1924 act resurfaced in the news in September 2017 when United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the U.S. would end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a policy to give people who came to the U.S. as undocumented children a legal avenue to stay. Sessions had earlier stated that the 1924 Immigration Act “was good for America.”

But according to Mae M. Ngai, a professor of Asian American studies and history at Columbia University, “the 1924 act is considered almost universally to be a stain on our history.”

It’s an “obviously racist act,” she says. “It ranked people from all over the world on a kind of hierarchy of desirability based on their race and national origin … There is no controversy over that.”

The 1924 quota system remained largely in place until the 1960s, when a new law established a new system. Each year, there is a cap on the total number of visas that the U.S. can issue. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. cannot issue more than seven percent of the total allowable visas to one nation.

Before this change in 1965, there had been no numeric caps on immigration within the Americas. So when the U.S. decided that it would only take a certain percentage of people from each nation per year, it was the first time the U.S. had put an official cap on Mexican immigration.

Prior to this, Mexican immigrants freely, and commonly, found work in the United States. Yet after the Hart-Celler Immigration Act was passed, “Whole groups of migrants from Mexico and Latin America whose entrance to the U.S. would have been considered legal before 1965 suddenly became illegal,” writesJane Hong, a history professor at Occidental College, in The L.A. Times.

“There’s a lot of talk about the DACA students and [accusations] that it’s an unlawful program,” Hsu says. “The problem with that is that you can always change laws,” she continues. “Laws are constantly changed in order to accommodate actual circumstances.”

For example, it is a fact that Mexicans have already been immigrating to and living in the U.S. for a very long time. Whether lawmakers choose to consider that reality is another story.

By Becky Little
https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-... (show quote)


Lawyers are experts at finding laser thin lines between laws as written, so regardless of any subsequent action by Congress on immigration, the debate will continue. Every single white American is either an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants.

The notion that there are undesirables immigrating to the US and must be stopped at all costs......................belies the reality that the vast majority of such people are born here.

Reply
 
 
Nov 1, 2018 11:56:25   #
Sicilianthing
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Lawyers are experts at finding laser thin lines between laws as written, so regardless of any subsequent action by Congress on immigration, the debate will continue. Every single white American is either an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants.

The notion that there are undesirables immigrating to the US and must be stopped at all costs......................belies the reality that the vast majority of such people are born here.


>>>>

That’s a sorry ass excuse Major and you know it....

There’s an Extraordinary difference between past Immigrant/s-Immigration process vs. today’s lunacy and what Assimilation was vs. Non Assimilation today.

For a further clue into the Lies, Wreckage, Trickery and deceit please view the Unconstitutionally entered charter with the United Nations Quota Memorandum of Understanding which violates our Sovereignty from DAY 1.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 15:07:41   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>

That’s a sorry ass excuse Major and you know it....

There’s an Extraordinary difference between past Immigrant/s-Immigration process vs. today’s lunacy and what Assimilation was vs. Non Assimilation today.

For a further clue into the Lies, Wreckage, Trickery and deceit please view the Unconstitutionally entered charter with the United Nations Quota Memorandum of Understanding which violates our Sovereignty from DAY 1.


An excuse for what, hysteria, xenophobia, bigotry? The point is, a little reason is called for, not kneejerk racist reactions.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 17:10:08   #
Sicilianthing
 
lpnmajor wrote:
An excuse for what, hysteria, xenophobia, bigotry? The point is, a little reason is called for, not kneejerk racist reactions.


>>>>

None of the above Major, it’s about the right to preservations and enforcing our laws, ending the Free For all.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 19:32:45   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
lpnmajor wrote:
An excuse for what, hysteria, xenophobia, bigotry? The point is, a little reason is called for, not kneejerk racist reactions.


Why did you decide to go low? Scoundrels choose this option. I don't believe you're a scoundrel right? The issue at hand is protecting our national sovereignty, not race. I do believe too much is made of diversity and not enough emphasis on assimilation. Those who cling to their previous nation's language and customs tend to congregate together and never seek to become Americans.

Reply
 
 
Nov 1, 2018 19:37:25   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
slatten49 wrote:
https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-immigration

For a long time, it wasn't possible to immigrate “Illegally" to the U.S.

Until the late 19th century, there wasn’t any such thing as “illegal” or “legal” immigration to the United States. That’s because before you can immigrate somewhere illegally, there has to be a law for you to break.

American immigration didn’t really begin until the late 1700s, when the United States became an independent nation. Before that, Africans had unwillingly entered the Americas as enslaved peoples and Europeans had entered as settlers—which is something totally different. While immigrants are beholden to the laws of the land they migrate to, settlers come to disrupt the current system and implement their own laws, write the scholars Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang.

But once the U.S. made its Constitution the new law of the land, immigrants flocked to the country with few restrictions. This didn’t mean that they were welcomed in the “New World.” In the beginning, when immigrants came mostly from northern and western Europe, anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment were rampant. By the mid- to late-19th century, people from southern and eastern Europe as well as China were coming over, and Americans resented the presence of Chinese, Italians, and more Catholics.

Although some states like California passed local immigration laws during this time, these laws either weren’t well enforced or were thrown out by courts, says Madeline Y. Hsu, a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. In fact, there were no federal laws governing who could enter and who couldn’t until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

At the time, Chinese people worked in gold mines, factories, railroads, and agriculture, especially on the West Coast. Although these immigrants made up only .002 percent of the U.S. population, white Americans blamed them for low wages and other economic problems. To placate economic and racial anxieties, the radical exclusion act banned almost all immigration from China, making only a few exceptions for special groups like students and diplomats. In addition, the Immigration Act passed that same year banned people who were poor, mentally ill, or convicted of crimes from entering the country.

Because only a very narrow group of Chinese people could legally immigrate, “the acting presumption was that if you’re Chinese you must have come in illegally,” Hsu says. “Chinese become the only group required to carry around certificates of residence, which are intended to show—to document—that they have in fact entered legally.” A decade later, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act banned most immigration from Asia, as well as immigration by prostitutes, polygamists, anarchists, and people with contagious diseases.

Asian exclusion continued with the 1924 Immigration Act, which banned all people who could not become naturalized citizens per the 1790 Naturalization Act. That naturalization law had originally said that only free white people could become naturalized citizens. Yet by 1924, previously excluded groups like Mexicans, black Americans, and Native Americans had won citizenship rights, and the law really only applied to Asians.

But the biggest change the 1924 act made to immigration policy was introducing numerical caps or quotas based on country of origin. These quotas gave enormous preference to people from northern and western Europe over those from southern and eastern parts of the continent. Turns out, the previous restrictions on Asian immigrants had made “very little impact on the growing levels of immigration to the United States,” Hsu says, because the vast majority of immigrants came from Europe. These new quotas were meant to address “a sense of crisis” that America was accepting too many immigrants, particularly too many non-Anglo Saxon ones.

The 1924 act resurfaced in the news in September 2017 when United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the U.S. would end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a policy to give people who came to the U.S. as undocumented children a legal avenue to stay. Sessions had earlier stated that the 1924 Immigration Act “was good for America.”

But according to Mae M. Ngai, a professor of Asian American studies and history at Columbia University, “the 1924 act is considered almost universally to be a stain on our history.”

It’s an “obviously racist act,” she says. “It ranked people from all over the world on a kind of hierarchy of desirability based on their race and national origin … There is no controversy over that.”

The 1924 quota system remained largely in place until the 1960s, when a new law established a new system. Each year, there is a cap on the total number of visas that the U.S. can issue. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. cannot issue more than seven percent of the total allowable visas to one nation.

Before this change in 1965, there had been no numeric caps on immigration within the Americas. So when the U.S. decided that it would only take a certain percentage of people from each nation per year, it was the first time the U.S. had put an official cap on Mexican immigration.

Prior to this, Mexican immigrants freely, and commonly, found work in the United States. Yet after the Hart-Celler Immigration Act was passed, “Whole groups of migrants from Mexico and Latin America whose entrance to the U.S. would have been considered legal before 1965 suddenly became illegal,” writesJane Hong, a history professor at Occidental College, in The L.A. Times.

“There’s a lot of talk about the DACA students and [accusations] that it’s an unlawful program,” Hsu says. “The problem with that is that you can always change laws,” she continues. “Laws are constantly changed in order to accommodate actual circumstances.”

For example, it is a fact that Mexicans have already been immigrating to and living in the U.S. for a very long time. Whether lawmakers choose to consider that reality is another story.

By Becky Little
https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-... (show quote)


Do you think those Mexican immigrants voted in US or Texas elections?? Did they get food stamps or welfare? Free healthcare? Social security?

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 19:50:17   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Do you think those Mexican immigrants voted in US or Texas elections?? Did they get food stamps or welfare? Free healthcare? Social security?

Before 1965, you mean? How would I really know without researching it, and I don't care to. Assuming you mean legal immigrants, they may very well have, but it is unlikely...at least nowhere near the extent currently seen by today's legal immigrants. I guess that answers your question.

BTW, check your PMs.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 20:02:42   #
malachi
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>

I read the whole thing, understood and I remember studying this stuff long ago in my travels somewhere.

Fast forward today, the laws are loose and do not protect Americans rather the newly improvised Quotas foiste on us by the United Nations are a violation of our Sovereignty which poses a whole other set of problems we’re fighting in this camp.

It is my conclusion no longer an opinion that Immigration both legal and illegal has run it’s course and is damaging our society with non assimilating ideologies.

I’m hoping our latest round of throttling has gotten through to Trump, we’re about to find out.
>>>> br br I read the whole thing, un... (show quote)


I just found out I am 98% Italian (l% Turkish ???) .

Am hoping this nation will "hold that line" no matter the ethnicities.

Grandpop probably had no idea how much his decendants would bless his dear self.

Take hope people. America must and will survive this. Prayer saved our nation before.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 20:32:46   #
Sicilianthing
 
padremike wrote:
Why did you decide to go low? Scoundrels choose this option. I don't believe you're a scoundrel right? The issue at hand is protecting our national sovereignty, not race. I do believe too much is made of diversity and not enough emphasis on assimilation. Those who cling to their previous nation's language and customs tend to congregate together and never seek to become Americans.


>>>>

Bullseye

Reply
 
 
Nov 1, 2018 21:16:55   #
Sicilianthing
 
malachi wrote:
I just found out I am 98% Italian (l% Turkish ???) .

Am hoping this nation will "hold that line" no matter the ethnicities.

Grandpop probably had no idea how much his decendants would bless his dear self.

Take hope people. America must and will survive this. Prayer saved our nation before.


>>>>

Woo hoo
Paisano

Reply
Nov 2, 2018 14:38:55   #
malachi
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>

Woo hoo
Paisano


What a relief! Paisana for sure !!!

P. S. On another subject... my little mind actually told me today that only the racists are racist --
they are the first ones to squawk about everything. Poor old Al Sharpton must have ulcers by now.

Hold your fort, Champ !!!

Reply
Nov 2, 2018 14:40:34   #
Sicilianthing
 
malachi wrote:
What a relief! Paisana for sure !!!

P. S. On another subject... my little mind actually told me today that only the racists are racist --
they are the first ones to squawk about everything. Poor old Al Sharpton must have ulcers by now.

Hold your fort, Champ !!!


>>>>

Yep and God Bless America, cause the world will tear itself apart if we don’t hold this fort from invaders...

Reply
Nov 2, 2018 14:55:04   #
malachi
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>

Yep and God Bless America, cause the world will tear itself apart if we don’t hold this fort from invaders...


It will bring a crush or a cure --this 'zit' is about to pop !

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.