You needed this thread to realize that? Where have you been hiding?
Who is the most recent immigrant in your family tree?
- Thread starter gohawks50
- Start date
So President Tom had more than one slave mistress? Sally ... and Ruth?
That goofy old Founding Father!! Way to go Tom!
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Both sides of my family in the mid 1880s from Germany.
Side note, my oldest daughter has three very close friends from high school who were born in Guatemala, Morocco, and Honduras respectively. Three of the four closest friends in her core group moved to the US before they were 3-4 years old. By speech or mannerisms you'd never know they aren't native born.
Side note, my oldest daughter has three very close friends from high school who were born in Guatemala, Morocco, and Honduras respectively. Three of the four closest friends in her core group moved to the US before they were 3-4 years old. By speech or mannerisms you'd never know they aren't native born.
I have never been able to dig deep on my Moms side…though my suspicion as they came through Mississippi and where extremely poor…been around a good long while.
Dads side, main branches I could find came over from Germany in the 1800s, and found multiple in the other main branch were born in England in the 1500s and died in he New England.
…and hell probably most of us have the same ancestry when get back a couple hundred years.
Dads side, main branches I could find came over from Germany in the 1800s, and found multiple in the other main branch were born in England in the 1500s and died in he New England.
…and hell probably most of us have the same ancestry when get back a couple hundred years.
For those wondering if your ancestors arrived legally I did a little research and found this:
For those clamoring for a wall against immigrants, it may come as a surprise to learn that there were no federal laws concerning immigration until well into the history of the United States. When people say “my ancestors came here legally,” they’re probably right. For the first century of the country’s existence, anyone could land here and walk right off the boat with no papers of any kind, just as Gumpertz did. Coming here “illegally” did not even exist as a concept.
The first federal general immigration law was enacted in 1882. It prohibited from entering the U.S. “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” In other words, unless you were physically or mentally incapable of taking care of yourself, you were in — unless you were Chinese.
That’s because the first sweeping federal restriction on immigration also came in 1882, in the form of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Troubled by the influx of Chinese workers — who helped build the transcontinental railroads, among other things — Congress enacted a wholesale ban on their further immigration that year. To enforce the ban, a bureaucracy had to be created, leading in 1891 to the establishment of the federal Bureau of Immigration, the first body charged with enforcing federal immigration law.
Beyond these restrictions, however, federal immigration laws remained relatively lax: If you were an able-bodied, non-Chinese person, you could come “legally” for several more decades. You didn’t have to speak a word of English or be literate in any language at all. In fact, it was not until 1917 that Congress required that immigrants pass a literacy test, and even then they could pass in any language, not just English.
Then a massive influx of new immigrant groups came at the turn of the 20th century — Italians from Southern Europe and Jews from Eastern Europe, largely — a backlash began to build. In 1924, President Coolidge signed into law the National Origins Act, the primary aim of which was to severely restrict the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. The new law required for the first time that immigrants to the U.S. have visas, introducing the concept of “having papers” to American immigration policy.
www.latimes.com
So most of our ancestors came legally, but in reality there were almost no requirements unless you were Chinese.
For those clamoring for a wall against immigrants, it may come as a surprise to learn that there were no federal laws concerning immigration until well into the history of the United States. When people say “my ancestors came here legally,” they’re probably right. For the first century of the country’s existence, anyone could land here and walk right off the boat with no papers of any kind, just as Gumpertz did. Coming here “illegally” did not even exist as a concept.
The first federal general immigration law was enacted in 1882. It prohibited from entering the U.S. “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” In other words, unless you were physically or mentally incapable of taking care of yourself, you were in — unless you were Chinese.
That’s because the first sweeping federal restriction on immigration also came in 1882, in the form of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Troubled by the influx of Chinese workers — who helped build the transcontinental railroads, among other things — Congress enacted a wholesale ban on their further immigration that year. To enforce the ban, a bureaucracy had to be created, leading in 1891 to the establishment of the federal Bureau of Immigration, the first body charged with enforcing federal immigration law.
Beyond these restrictions, however, federal immigration laws remained relatively lax: If you were an able-bodied, non-Chinese person, you could come “legally” for several more decades. You didn’t have to speak a word of English or be literate in any language at all. In fact, it was not until 1917 that Congress required that immigrants pass a literacy test, and even then they could pass in any language, not just English.
Then a massive influx of new immigrant groups came at the turn of the 20th century — Italians from Southern Europe and Jews from Eastern Europe, largely — a backlash began to build. In 1924, President Coolidge signed into law the National Origins Act, the primary aim of which was to severely restrict the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. The new law required for the first time that immigrants to the U.S. have visas, introducing the concept of “having papers” to American immigration policy.
Op-Ed: Yes, your ancestors probably did come here legally — because 'illegal' immigration is less than a century old
When Nathalie Gumpertz arrived in New York in 1858, she was 22, single and ready to build a life in her new country.
www.latimes.com
So most of our ancestors came legally, but in reality there were almost no requirements unless you were Chinese.
Last edited:
Family history and my brother has copies of the ship passenger lists or manifest or whatever it’s called. Sorry I don’t have a copy.
Correct.For those wondering if your ancestors arrived legally I did a little research and found this:
For those clamoring for a wall against immigrants, it may come as a surprise to learn that there were no federal laws concerning immigration until well into the history of the United States. When people say “my ancestors came here legally,” they’re probably right. For the first century of the country’s existence, anyone could land here and walk right off the boat with no papers of any kind, just as Gumpertz did. Coming here “illegally” did not even exist as a concept.
The first federal general immigration law was enacted in 1882. It prohibited from entering the U.S. “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” In other words, unless you were physically or mentally incapable of taking care of yourself, you were in — unless you were Chinese.
That’s because the first sweeping federal restriction on immigration also came in 1882, in the form of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Troubled by the influx of Chinese workers — who helped build the transcontinental railroads, among other things — Congress enacted a wholesale ban on their further immigration that year. To enforce the ban, a bureaucracy had to be created, leading in 1891 to the establishment of the federal Bureau of Immigration, the first body charged with enforcing federal immigration law.
Beyond these restrictions, however, federal immigration laws remained relatively lax: If you were an able-bodied, non-Chinese person, you could come “legally” for several more decades. You didn’t have to speak a word of English or be literate in any language at all. In fact, it was not until 1917 that Congress required that immigrants pass a literacy test, and even then they could pass in any language, not just English.
Then a massive influx of new immigrant groups came at the turn of the 20th century — Italians from Southern Europe and Jews from Eastern Europe, largely — a backlash began to build. In 1924, President Coolidge signed into law the National Origins Act, the primary aim of which was to severely restrict the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. The new law required for the first time that immigrants to the U.S. have visas, introducing the concept of “having papers” to American immigration policy.
Op-Ed: Yes, your ancestors probably did come here legally — because 'illegal' immigration is less than a century old
When Nathalie Gumpertz arrived in New York in 1858, she was 22, single and ready to build a life in her new country.
So most of our ancestors came legally, but in reality there were almost no requirements unless you were Chinese.
I do believe most of the people who are currently coming over the border without following established guidelines do just want opportunity and a better life , but the bottom line is they are not here legally. Unfortunately there are several hundred thousand people coming in with them who are bad actors.
You started it by indirectly impugning the motives and intent of some Americans tbh. I merely replied to it. Anyway. Moving on to the original point.
I too have the Ellis Island documents for my grandparents arrival, but apparently everyone except Chinese would have been "legal* immigrants at the time. I'm proud of them for having the courage to travel a long way to fulfill their dreams. I just don't think what they did was somehow morally better than today's immigrants that also just want a better life for their families simply because the rules have changed.
Lol! There are already plenty of threads dedicated to the hatred of current immigrants. Let’s keep this one civil.
