Is That Legal?

This seems rather ahistorical since during the majority of the 20C and most importantly during the peak of American power after WWII we had minimal immigration at all. During the Depression there was quite a bit of emigration from the US, especially Mexican-Americans. If this is about American decline what was that about, and if we were in decline then what makes this decline different from that decline, and why can't things get better after immigration is sharply limited. What am I missing here.

I am in favor of a major over-hall in the immigration system making it fairer and more rational. While not a open borders advocate I think immigration has been an unequivical benefit to the US and will likely continue to be so. I'd love to see the irrational and punitive elements of our current system, and of the proposed reforms, done away with. But at least in the editorial (I've not had a chance to read the book yet though I hope to since I think Motomura is very smart) there is something of a distortion, I think. It's true that we in the US had a much more open system of immigration in the time leading up to the first world war. But the economic and social state of the country was massively different then so of course no straight-forward conclusions can be drawn from this. I suspect that Motomura's point isn't anywhere near as simplistic but am sorry to see it put that way in this editorial. I reminded of those who say that open borders is no problem since England didn't require passports for entry and had no clear border restrictions in the late 19th century without bothering to ask at all why that might have been reasonable then but not now. I suppose that in the space of an op-ed we ought not expect detailed thought but I was sorry to see this quite obvious non-sequitor. It doesn't help the pro-immiration case.

Is this meant to state some sort of general rule, that countries with immigration restrictions are "aging and collapsing"? What would that say about Japan throughout its entire existence? Or is this another one of those rules, like so many rules of faculty lounge grammar, that is only allowed to be applied against America?

humm, what about China? They do not quite have the most open policy when it comes to immigration, yet, one would hardly see any sign of decline there, much to the contrary. As of Japan, like sean noted, there seems to be a double standard. But I would gladly look at the Japanese empire more like being one of the past. Long gone are the days the empire of the rising sun claimed a pan-asian rule.

Immigration policies barely are to be regarded as a sign of rupture in an empire. Yet, what causes changes in those policies (such as economic decline) is a better element to focus on.

Also, I would hesitate to affirm, like Matt did, that US had a much more open immigration policy prior to the Great War. Lets just mention the asian exclusion policies, such as the Chinese Exclusion Acts (1882-1992 upto 1943) as an example.