Illegal Immigrant - White Caucasian Settlers - Let Truth Be Spoken

This thread really doesn't even make sense.

Fact remains war was waged on this land and the "white caucasion" settlers won. So naturally one of the spoiles of war is creating the laws of the land. I'm not sure where the confusion lays? These rules arn't specific to North America as this has been the norm throughout human history and our wars for land.

Well unfortunately MA, your use of the term "illegal" in this case is misused in defining your argument.

When Columbus and his sailors landed on the islands of San Salvador in the Bahamas on October 12, 1492, they encountered peaceful, indigenous people who brought them gifts, and thought that they were Gods. The ships and items the visitors brought were very impressive and foreign to them. The natives were unarmed, yet bore scars from fighting off others who tried to take them as slaves. Nowhere that I have seen is it written that these people had "laws" as we know them, against such visitations. Their friendly nature would serve as testament to that fact.

From the October 12, 1492, entry in his journal he wrote of them, "Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves. They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion. If it pleases our Lord, I will take six of them to Your Highnesses when I depart, in order that they may learn our language."[18] Lacking modern weaponry and even metal-forged swords or pikes, he remarked upon their tactical vulnerability, writing, "I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased." [19]

en.wikipedia.org...

Other sources write that Columbus and his men were extremely abusive, and even that they would routinely cut off pieces of these natives just to test the edges of their knives and swords.

Their obsession with finding gold was evident when they had the natives sworn to find and bring them gold every three months, for which they would get a copper pendant to be worn around their necks. Those without one would get their hands cut off and be left to bleed to death. With this kind of treatment, it is no wonder the natives turned on them, but failed, as they were no match for the war hardened band of merciless sailors and their swords and shields.

There was no negotiation. The natives were made to swear allegiance to the King and Christianity, or were killed. Most were taken as slaves or died because of diseases brought by the sailors.

So it really wasn't a case of "illegal." It was case of imperialistic barbarism and the total subjugation and murdering of otherwise friendly people who sought to help the visitors and admired them. Immoral? Oh yeah. Sad really.

But in the modern world all that has changed. Heh, or has it? The same things exists now to a degree, except with modern warships and weapons. The term illegal though now does have application since the introduction of "law" onto the continent. And since those are the rules played by, the term "illegal immigrant" has modern relevance.

Originally posted by Tyr Sog
This thread really doesn't even make sense.

Fact remains war was waged on this land and the "white caucasion" settlers won. So naturally one of the spoiles of war is creating the laws of the land. I'm not sure where the confusion lays? These rules arn't specific to North America as this has been the norm throughout human history and our wars for land.

More pro-imperialism?

Okay so why hate illegal immigrants then?

Maybe they are also just trying to take over U.S.A fair and square.

Oh, so that's what it is, so now you must be against more 'recent' immigrants?

Then it's just a game of war to you, it's not about what's right and wrong.

How is that even an argument?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I do know the history of my land but I am beginning to wonder if you do. There have been far more people who have immigrated to the US since we became a country than before. That in and of itself disproves your statement that we are all descended from settlers.

And yes I would still tell anyone from any country who is illegally entering another country that what they are doing is illegal. They are by definition breaking the law regardless of which country they are entering illegally or who is in power.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Tyr Sog
This thread really doesn't even make sense.

Fact remains war was waged on this land and the "white caucasion" settlers won. So naturally one of the spoiles of war is creating the laws of the land. I'm not sure where the confusion lays? These rules arn't specific to North America as this has been the norm throughout human history and our wars for land.

More pro-imperialism?

Okay so why hate illegal immigrants then?

Maybe they are also just trying to take over U.S.A fair and square.

Oh, so that's what it is, so now you must be against more 'recent' immigrants?

Then it's just a game of war to you, it's not about what's right and wrong.

How is that even an argument?

I don't hate any immigrants. I just want them to immigrate legally. It would be a plus if they tried to learn english.
You are posting as if I think the things done in the country were right. You are wrong about that too.
If you are angry about the brutal history of humanitarian crimes in the USA good for you; that doesn't change the fact that the people who conquer get to make the laws.
The sins of the fathers or grandfathers are not tranferable to the sons.

The inspiration for the current thread is the topic of the "vigilante" rancher i assume.
I am of the opinion that you have omitted key points from the original story. 1. the immigrants crossed the border illegally 2. the immigrants were trespassing. I will not say if the claims against him are true or his reactions are justified, but the 2 laws broken do not exonerate these citizens of another country.

The history of this country will long be disputed, sons will always answer for the sins of the fathers. History of the United States has no bearing on the laws that were actually broken and seemingly ignored. When Settlers came to this land there were no borders to cross, no immigration laws, no land ownership that is a concept brought with them.

so .. according to this OP's logic.. the Buffalo should have sued the early original intuits that migrated to North America from Siberia.

no wait the prehistoric megafauna that inhabited the continent before the Buffallo migrated here should have sued THEM.

"illegal" denotes presence of "law" to be in opposition to.
was there "law" to be "illegal" to.. before white man's arrival?

or are we just talking "hypothetical law" .. like.. law that kiiinda was written.. but just imaginary...

once a "law" was MADE.. legislated... then something can be illegal in the face of that law..

not before that law's existence.

unless you want to somehow show us how illegal immigration is reverse compatible.. or .. retroactive through pre-european colonization and pre-history.

-
-

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

What would you have us do? Change history? We have to deal with the here and now regardless of the story history has told thus far. We cannot undo this and to make this argument is essentially to ask us to do just that. History is an important lesson for those who think imperialism is a good thing. Imperialism is the reason our country has risen and it will be the cause of our demise. No doubt there. But we should not be asking ourselves to forgo all that we've built, the laws we stand on, to appease the sensibilities of the past.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by projectvxn]

As far as all the post that didn't agree with me this post was the most on-point and in-topic.

Thank You, I will respond to this shortly
I hope more follow your lead.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
what I am saying is, if settler colonialism was taught in elementary school there would be alot less racism in the world.

Wanting the laws of our country to be followed is not racist. Insisting that people come into the country legally is not racist. Sending illegal immigrants home and telling them if they want to live here fine do it legally is not racist.

But when your own local, county and State governments embrace them...provide them an education, housing assistance, medical care....When the county police do not cooperate with ICE...it's the person with YOUR point-of-view that comes off as a racist bigot. As unfair as that is.

You're only asking the existing laws to be enforced.

Now, they're ALL going to be American citizens...bless their hearts.

And once again, it's the one that demands they go back and get in line....yada, yada, yada...who looks hateful.

And the media loves to show examples every chance they get.

Thats the way it was back then. Those in power conquered and claimed as much land as possible. That is past history. Just about every country on earth has been conquered and taken over by someone else at some point. Nothing you can do about it now. That generation died off so maybe you can try to punish them in the after life.

This is nothing to do with illegal immigration in todays world. Immigrents are welcome just come in legally.

reply to post by prevenge


You raise a valid point it seems that Russians were the first Americans - 13 000 years ago. Would that make Europeans the original americans?

Or is there a more convenient time in history that would suit the OP's rant?

Many scientists thought humans first ventured into the New World across a land bridge from present-day Russia into Alaska about 13,000 years ago.

This new discovery suggests humans may have crossed the land bridge into the Americas much earlier -- possibly during an ice age -- and rapidly colonized the two continents.

CNN.

"As far as all the post that didn't agree with me this post was the most on-point and in-topic"

On point as to what? Native peoples upset over battles lost centuries ago? How it is a shame that war happens and there are losers? What some call force and aggression others call ambition and oppurtunity. I guess it all come down to how you CHOOSE to define it.

Now let's look at the original inhabitants of India:

The Dravidians were India's first inhabitants. Archaeologists believe the Dravidians migrated to India from East Africa in prehistoric times. Aryan invaders from the north conquered the Dravidians about 1500BC. The Aryans were related to the Persians and Europeans. Their language, Sanskrit, is similar to Greek and Latin. Linguists classify Sanskrit as an "Indo-European language."

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Mynaeris]

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


More pro-imperialism?

Okay so why hate illegal immigrants then?

Maybe they are also just trying to take over U.S.A fair and square.

Oh, so that's what it is, so now you must be against more 'recent' immigrants?

Then it's just a game of war to you, it's not about what's right and wrong.

How is that even an argument?

You're right. There really isn't an argument as what I stated is reality.

I don't doubt that for many illegals(specifically mexicans) that they are waging a war on the US by flooding our states with illegals. Then when here taking advantaged of all of our politically corr(upt)ect laws and loopholes. La Raza, Aztlán, call it what you want but there certainly is a movement.

Also what does legal immigrants have to do with anything? They went through the proper channels to get here.

You're all over the place man.



[edit on 19-2-2009 by Tyr Sog]

A thread I made wondering the same thing...

I used to be a lot more critical of the subject, but I realized, it probably is karma.

The criticism I do still have though, is that while I wholly recognized that the genocides and thefts of land did take place none of my ancestors ever had anything to do with that. All of them came from Italy or Germant or Wales in the 30s, and establisehd themselves here legally.

I get the karmic side of this but I do not think that it necesarily gives someone who cheats his way into the country, then lives off of handouts not availible to legitimate citizens, some claim to that over the people who just happened to be born here because their ancestors lived here.

In terms of the thread which inspired you to make this thread, and without even considering who deserves anything...

It's one thing to march into a country (for whatever reason) and kill whoever gets in your way or die fighting.

It's a completely different thing to sneak into a country (for whatever reason) and then have the audacity to whine about it when you get caught.

Apples and oranges, no?

If a dude tries to rob a bank, and he either gets away or he gets shot and killed by the cops in the process, that's one thing.
If a different dude tries to rob a bank, but fails because he gets taken down by a customer, then sues that customer for assault, that's a completely different totally uncomparable thing.

Neither is "moral" by most peoples standards, but if forced to choose between the two, I find it hard to believe anyone would respect the second dude more than the first dude.

Gee, my ancestors crusaded against my other ancestors. I don't know what to do, hate myself? or demand reparations from myself? I guess I am only entitled to half of the property I bought, eh?

I'm just curious, but could someone post a list of countries that allow illegal immigrants to invade with no questions asked?

Originally posted by Erasurehead
Thats the way it was back then. Those in power conquered and claimed as much land as possible. That is past history.

But it's still happening.
Iraq will soon be colonized the same way I guarantee you

So how is it the past?

We have evolved as a people, if we considered ourselves evolved we must be against what we have previously allowed.

Including invasions and imperialism in our name.

Originally posted by ohioriver
I'm just curious, but could someone post a list of countries that allow illegal immigrants to invade with no questions asked?

The united states of America

so stop speaking of illegal immigrants and if you are against it only speak of lack of border security if you don't like the current state of affairs.