retvrn

We’re backing away from:

> The U.S. had a draconian restrictive immigration policy from 1921-1965.

to “well ok not really but it didn’t matter”?

The broader context is that approximately any country that wants a healthy, stable dairy industry (often regarded as a component of national security) has to provide government support to their farmers one way or another. “Stable” is particularly important for dairy because recovery when lots of dairy cattle are culled is expensive and takes years.

The US and Canada use different, incompatible means for accomplishing this, so you can arbitrarily paint either as “cheating” the other by saying “well (Canada/The US) does X to the tune of (a dollar amount) and the other does zero of that, they’re cheating!”, i.e. by lying by omission.

Because of the way the US subsidizes theirs, Canada could be vulnerable to dumping. So there are protections in place. This is not remotely a big deal so long as both sides are competent and operating on something resembling good faith…

Plus he outright stole government money, not even the pretense of some kind of pass-through contracting entity or something, just brazenly stole cash. And later went on a PR tour lying about being destitute to get Congress to give him a big pension (presidents didn’t get one before that; and he was doing quite alright financially without it).

Whatever the party affiliation, he was an actual thief and scam-artist at the public’s expense, so wouldn’t be a great example of some high water mark for public service.

For those outside the Americas, yes. Western hemisphere immigration had no meaningful restrictions until 1965.

Oh god I hope this lie is part of an attempt to get right-wingers on board with a “let’s roll immigration policy back to what we had in 1950!” push.

I hope this because it’d be hilarious if they got what they wanted and realized that meant actual open borders with most or all of the Americas.