Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
I'm not sure what your point is here. The Chinese were explicitly singled out for example, and prohibited from entry for most of a century. And anti-Irish sentiment was rampant, open, so if it wasn't "cultural" then what was it? Even if it was anti-Catholic, why does that matter? Surely you've seen the anti-Irish cartoons. Depicting them as monkeys/apes was common, like this one:
Anti Chinese sentiment in the 19th Century was racial and economic (generally, from my understanding). Anti Irish sentiment of the 19th century was economic and religious/political. No one really worried about the foreign polotical influence of Buddha, but people did worry that Catholics would prioritize their loyalty to the Pope.

My point , I suppose, is twofold:

1. I think you are lumping unlike things together in discussing the OP.

2. If we are attempting to ensure our immigration structure doesn't disrupt our - for lack of better description - Western cultural norms (and, broadly speaking, I think that a laudable goal), then you have to (as we have done before) have an active program of cultural assimilation of newcomers, combined with a deliberate awareness of the culture you are importing. She is correct that - all things being equal - this would advantage (say) would-be immigrants from Canada v would-be immigrants from (say) Pakistan.

However, some of the groups you mentioned (Japanese, Jews, etc), do not come with those considerations. Jews have been a huge force in developing Western culture (they are organic to it), and Japanese culture shares many norms with our own.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk