Not true. I despise contemporary leftists but it was not leftists who brought the coloreds in.
Immigration has continuously been one of the most important 80/20 issues that continuously pops up every other generation. Both parties have effectively gone with the wave until relatively recently, where Republicans have begun to move more anti-immigration, and Democrats the other way. Voting records (when I can FUCKING FIND THEM /seethe) are, appropriately, odd when compared to modern US politics. You can actually see surprisingly stark and reactive differences. Immigration was not a Rep/Dem platform, it was normally a state-by-state district-by-district problem, back when politics was more localized.
For those who appreciate autism and effort posts, lets break down some early modern voting patterns from the last century:
The Johnson–Reed Act of 1924 is a good start IMO. We all know anti-Chinese shit, but this anti-immigration is more generally applied. It passed by 84% in the House, 163 R's and 145 D's voted yes, Bipartisan as fuck.
I tried to find more information about the first Congressional approval of the Bracero program, which was effectively made by Presidential pen and retroactively made acceptable by Congressional approval, but I genuinely can't find shit about it's early voting patterns. Though considering this is post WWII riding off FDR's high... Yeah, the early problems with importing foreign slave labor in the modern era?
Operation Wetback is here in the middle, during 55. President Eisenhower (R), actually flexing his Presidential powers instead of letting himself be cucked, basically put the military in charge of Border Patrol and began msss removal of illegal immigrants-waitaminute, we've heard this all before! The reaction was generally pretty good at the time, even if there was a lot of anger from the Mexicans legally in the US who were able to stay.
Now back to the Bracero Program. It came down to parties being deeply split...somehow. In 1963, during the Democrats holding majority in both House and Senate, the House voted 174 to 158 to let the Bracero Program lapse. Mind you, there were 176 Republicans, and 258 Democrats at the time. Again, no strict voting records because that would make my job easy. Either way, this only came about because, after several extensions, the program became deeeeply unpopular, even after the social blowback from Operation Wetback.
AN - I'm going to skip anything involving Europeans and WWII resettlement (yes including the Jews). While we may view the modern Euro as nothing more than a pseudo-human who deserves to be ran over by trucks of peace and shot by US smuggled drug guns, back in the day the views were entirely different. Euros, hell even now, don't exactly count as 'foreign' enough to really bother most. I'm focusing on the actions that lead to our current predicament that normies would understand, not bullshit like war brides or whatever.
Returning to our regularly scheduled anti-racism, we have the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 (pro-immigration). To return to the idea of party splits, the South basically began it's ideological breaking from Norther Democrats & Republicans. I'd argue that here is generally where we actually start to see a 'party switch' start in different localities, as the ideological consistency of the parties, already pretty malleable and more coalition like, began to reorganize with 71 D's against. Rich D's lead effort, R's being retarded or economically incentivized to nod along, normal as can be.
Welcome to the new decade, it's 1980 and the Refuge Act just passed, 220 D's and 108 R's. Republicans are being lead by the nose by bleeding heart ideologies as we all fucking know, though we do have 32 R's voting nay, compared to the D's 15. Here we see the beginning of accepting retards because boats, and yes it was a D lead effort.
IMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT of 1986! Our beloved finally appears! Criminalize employers knowingly hiring illegals! Holy shit, Republicans actually lead and DID something! Sure there's amnesty, but what can you do? Say no to big brown eyes? Be
mean? Anyways, slowly the modern voting patterns can be seen spottily, albeit with D's still leading populists on the matter and voting split (to be fair, D's still have majority at this time). You can really see the early uniparty at work here, and the measures of populists trying to corral the bullshit. Almost makes you have a weird patriotic feeling, that we could reach across the isle and both R's and D's would both tell people to get the FUCK out of our country, stop the slave labor, ect.
Welcome to a new era, the 90s come in roaring with the Immigration Act of 1990! It's authored by Ted Kennedy (D) and we love immigrants! Of course, we couldn't get it done without our great bipartisan efforts with 186 D's and...a-and 45 R's? 127 R's voted NO?! What the FUCK? Are Republicans NAZIS or something?! Do they want English as a naturalization test because they hate how the words Taco and Burrito sound?! What about Temporary Protected Visas?! Hurricanes and "Never AgainTM" right? Oh fuck, oh fuck, something is starting to go wrong...
AN - I'd put NACARA 1997 here, because amnesty programs and whatnot, and while it was authored by a Republican I can't find diddly squat for votes. Doesn't matter though, it's more bleeding heart shit, America being the land of immigrants, ect ect. I am also completely ignoring 9/11 shit. It's basically lockstep 'of course it would happen' like WW2 shit. War makes strange bedfellows and naturally incentivizes populism.
The 2000s are swinging, and we're gonna BUILD THE WALL! The Republicans have gone INSANE! Now they've voted on the Secure Fence Act of 2006! 216 R's with 64 D's. 131 D's voted against such EVIL NAZISM in our United States of America! Yeah, the modern age is here, and Republicans have firmly settled anti-immigration stances onto their broader platform. Some D's will try to keep up, settle on sanity than increasingly bizarre and undefendable party lines, but we all know how this will end up post-Obama.
Nearly a century of law leading to the modern voting patterns, and what can we deduce? Quite frankly, both pro and anti immigration wasn't based on parties, but locality and offensiveness to the populace at large at the time. As I stated earlier, everyone went with the flow, the easy routes, and the easy was, for quite some time, just allowing people in because magic dirt theory. Populist Republicans, however, have continuously lead, and split their own party, on immigration reform, restriction, and reaction, and that has only increased dramatically in the modern day.
Funnily enough, you could argue that nothing has changed for Republicans, still being split and falling for bleeding heart bullshit, though now that bleeding heart reaches for white farmers and Christians, so it's being pointed in a better direction than Dems leading Reps by the nose. However, D's began getting hijacked by "special interests" and progs surprisingly earlier than some think, leading to our current situation that's been so extensively exasperated.
This isn't even going into their reaction to Cuban and other anti-communist immigration, which really would show they're only anti-immigration when they can make profit, economic or political.
Alright class, that's it for today! Hope we all had a great time with our lesson, I certainly enjoyed trying to find voting articles through .govs and fucking newspapers. I genuinely wonder if some voting data is just conveniently forgotten about. Anyhow, next week will be a test on the AIDs epidemic, bring scantrons!
tl;dr we should eradicate liberals and nuke both the drug cartel browns and pedo prophet browns.
EDIT: Also saw @Troonos do basically the same thing, sup my nigga. I wanted to focus on voting patterns since politics is not our stagnant R/D paradigm, my research lasted a bit longer because I'm autistic and """educated""".
