Our country was formed by....immigrants!

[Pogo]

They were not immigrating......they came here because no civilization existed......and when they met people, they were used as soldiers of fortune to wipe out enemy tribes....then they just said fuck it, we're taking over....and thank god they did.....#best country ever.

"No civilization existed"

That must be why so many 'settlers' looked at the Indians' lifestyle, looked at their own ---- and ran off to join the former. To get away from "civilization".

Oh you dummy! Right... run off to a group that couldn't even put a "wheel" together after 1,000 years!
Also explain to me "HOW MANY" actually RAN off?
What totally exaggerated full of crap statement and I'm part Indian so I can say that!

Sorry, you don't become "part Indian" because you channel-surfed into some reruns of "F Troop".

You have NO idea! I can trace my heritage back to my great-great-grandmother dummy! How about you?

It fills me with no end of delight to report that no, I cannot trace my heritage back to your great-great-great grandmother Dummy.

Weird name too.

 

[Pogo]

Here is a map of the US in 1883. I would say the country was pretty much already formed before then.

DUH!

I wasn't addressing how the physical country was formed but when the FIRST immigration laws came into existence.
What value does your comment add?

Here's a guy who wants to talk about "content value" --- after starting a thread on which hand O'bama wipes his ass with in the toilet.

Ironical troll is ironical.

Try posting some content...and maybe we'll care what you have to say.

Pogo doesn't have the ability to produce content, except in the bathroom.

Good point.
As I stated previously he suffers apparently with Coprophilia (from Greek κόπρος, kópros—excrement and φιλία, philía—liking, fondness), also called scatophilia.

It was YOUR thread, Doodles. And it's gonna follow you around like a skid mark.

 

[Pogo]

Formed before the FIRST immigration laws were written.
The Act. On August 3, 1882, the forty-seventh United States Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1882. It is considered by many to be "first general immigration law" due to the fact that it created the guidelines of exclusion through the creation of "a new category of inadmissible aliens."

And by the way NOT ONE American that I know is against any person who wants to become a legal American citizen by doing the following:
To become a U.S. citizen, you must:

• Have had a Permanent Resident (Green) Card for at least five years, or for at least three years if you’re filing as the spouse of a U.S. citizen
  • If you apply for naturalization less than six months before your Permanent Resident Card expires, or do not apply for naturalization until your card has already expired, you must renew your card.
  • You can apply for naturalization before you receive your new Green Card, but you’ll need to submit a photocopy of the receipt of your Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, when you receive it.
• Meet certain eligibility requirements including being
  • At least 18 years old at the time of filing
  • Able to read, write, and speak basic English
  • A person of good moral character
• Go through the ten step naturalization process which includes
  • Determining your eligibility to become an American citizen
  • Preparing and submitting form N-400, the application for naturalization

Taking the U.S. Naturalization Test and having a personal interview
How to Become a U.S. Citizen | USAGov
Now nearly 90 million of us Americans including Donald Trump (who's wife by the way is a "LEGAL" naturalized Citizen who followed all the above steps) relatives of mine who laboriously followed the above steps are rightfully disgusted when people evidently like you think we hate immigrants!

We are NOT against LEGAL immigrants that want to give up their own home citizenship, adopt the American flag and not be waving their home country because this is their home
NOW!
What we are against is lazy shiftless people that don't qualify for the above!

Here is a map of the US in 1883. I would say the country was pretty much already formed before then.

DUH!

I wasn't addressing how the physical country was formed but when the FIRST immigration laws came into existence.
What value does your comment add?

Here's a guy who wants to talk about "content value" --- after starting a thread on which hand O'bama wipes his ass with in the toilet.

Ironical troll is ironical.

Try posting some content...and maybe we'll care what you have to say.

Content? WHERE have YOU ever provided a substantiation of any of your totally inane comments? No links! Nothing! Just dumb ass puerile comments!

Can't argue with that one.

 

[healthmyths]

They were not immigrating......they came here because no civilization existed......and when they met people, they were used as soldiers of fortune to wipe out enemy tribes....then they just said fuck it, we're taking over....and thank god they did.....#best country ever.

"No civilization existed"

That must be why so many 'settlers' looked at the Indians' lifestyle, looked at their own ---- and ran off to join the former. To get away from "civilization".

Oh you dummy! Right... run off to a group that couldn't even put a "wheel" together after 1,000 years!
Also explain to me "HOW MANY" actually RAN off?
What totally exaggerated full of crap statement and I'm part Indian so I can say that!

Sorry, you don't become "part Indian" because you channel-surfed into some reruns of "F Troop".

You have NO idea! I can trace my heritage back to my great-great-grandmother dummy! How about you?

It fills me with no end of delight to report that no, I cannot trace my heritage back to your great-great-great grandmother Dummy.

Weird name too.

I have to admit you are right! I was wrong in my comment as I thought you were intelligent enough not to run to distinct statements together!
So to rephrase the question so a simpleton could understand: Do you have an Native American ancestors?
Or let me rephrase again just in case THAT was too difficult for you to clearly understand.
Is there any Native American DNA in your blood or is it all full of coprophagic material...i.e. are you full of shit?

 

[Care4all]

Our country was formed by settlers not immigrants.

they were immigrants and colonists!!!

I've been doing my ancestry tree and during the process have come across various books and records about what was going on at the time....the early 1600's in Virginia and later the 13 colonies.... and the promise of land ownership was what brought the immigrants over, many came on bond....because they could not afford to pay the fare for the trip. They were promised 50 acres, if they served the Master for 7 years, and some were never given the 50 acres, but they were given to the bond holder who paid their way, served 7 years, and then got nothing, but a chance to buy 50 acres for a reasonable amount of money, but still took them a decade more to accumulate it.... rich plantation owners were promised 50 acres for every person they brought here to work the land and turn it in to tobacco farm.....

the problem was that there was no restriction on who they brought here, so instead of paying for an indentured servant for 7 years work, they got greedy and bought an entire boat full of slaves from Africa for pennies on the pound of the cost of European indentured servants...

And the government paid them for each slave toiling the soil, with 50 acres a slave given to the owner....

the common wealth also raised it from giving those willing to toil the soil 50 acres, they later raised it to 100 acres for 7 years working it, given to them.... land ownership, which these commoners never had the opportunity in England etc....

 

[buckeye45_73]

They were not immigrating......they came here because no civilization existed......

That's not true at all.

Sure it is....hell you lefties call West Virgina backwards....and they are far more advanced than indian tribes in 1600

 

[buckeye45_73]

Our country was formed by settlers not immigrants.

they were immigrants and colonists!!!

I've been doing my ancestry tree and during the process have come across various books and records about what was going on at the time....the early 1600's in Virginia and later the 13 colonies.... and the promise of land ownership was what brought the immigrants over, many came on bond....because they could not afford to pay the fare for the trip. They were promised 50 acres, if they served the Master for 7 years, and some were never given the 50 acres, but they were given to the bond holder who paid their way, served 7 years, and then got nothing, but a chance to buy 50 acres for a reasonable amount of money, but still took them a decade more to accumulate it.... rich plantation owners were promised 50 acres for every person they brought here to work the land and turn it in to tobacco farm.....

the problem was that there was no restriction on who they brought here, so instead of paying for an indentured servant for 7 years work, they got greedy and bought an entire boat full of slaves from Africa for pennies on the pound of the cost of European indentured servants...

And the government paid them for each slave toiling the soil, with 50 acres a slave given to the owner....

the common wealth also raised it from giving those willing to toil the soil 50 acres, they later raised it to 100 acres for 7 years working it, given to them.... land ownership, which these commoners never had the opportunity in England etc....

Didn't know that....if it's true the govt encouraged and paid people to get slaves......that makes me want an even smaller govt....that's unbelievable......

 

[buckeye45_73]

Here is a map of the US in 1883. I would say the country was pretty much already formed before then.

DUH!

I wasn't addressing how the physical country was formed but when the FIRST immigration laws came into existence.
What value does your comment add?

Here's a guy who wants to talk about "content value" --- after starting a thread on which hand O'bama wipes his ass with in the toilet.

Ironical troll is ironical.

Try posting some content...and maybe we'll care what you have to say.

Content? WHERE have YOU ever provided a substantiation of any of your totally inane comments? No links! Nothing! Just dumb ass puerile comments!

Can't argue with that one.

I don't think he was talking about me, I post links and all kinds of stuff with my posts...did in this very thread....

 

[Care4all]

Our country was formed by settlers not immigrants.

they were immigrants and colonists!!!

I've been doing my ancestry tree and during the process have come across various books and records about what was going on at the time....the early 1600's in Virginia and later the 13 colonies.... and the promise of land ownership was what brought the immigrants over, many came on bond....because they could not afford to pay the fare for the trip. They were promised 50 acres, if they served the Master for 7 years, and some were never given the 50 acres, but they were given to the bond holder who paid their way, served 7 years, and then got nothing, but a chance to buy 50 acres for a reasonable amount of money, but still took them a decade more to accumulate it.... rich plantation owners were promised 50 acres for every person they brought here to work the land and turn it in to tobacco farm.....

the problem was that there was no restriction on who they brought here, so instead of paying for an indentured servant for 7 years work, they got greedy and bought an entire boat full of slaves from Africa for pennies on the pound of the cost of European indentured servants...

And the government paid them for each slave toiling the soil, with 50 acres a slave given to the owner....

the common wealth also raised it from giving those willing to toil the soil 50 acres, they later raised it to 100 acres for 7 years working it, given to them.... land ownership, which these commoners never had the opportunity in England etc....

Didn't know that....if it's true the govt encouraged and paid people to get slaves......that makes me want an even smaller govt....that's unbelievable......

it was the British Government, but yeah...

 

[Care4all]

Our country was formed by settlers not immigrants.

they were immigrants and colonists!!!

I've been doing my ancestry tree and during the process have come across various books and records about what was going on at the time....the early 1600's in Virginia and later the 13 colonies.... and the promise of land ownership was what brought the immigrants over, many came on bond....because they could not afford to pay the fare for the trip. They were promised 50 acres, if they served the Master for 7 years, and some were never given the 50 acres, but they were given to the bond holder who paid their way, served 7 years, and then got nothing, but a chance to buy 50 acres for a reasonable amount of money, but still took them a decade more to accumulate it.... rich plantation owners were promised 50 acres for every person they brought here to work the land and turn it in to tobacco farm.....

the problem was that there was no restriction on who they brought here, so instead of paying for an indentured servant for 7 years work, they got greedy and bought an entire boat full of slaves from Africa for pennies on the pound of the cost of European indentured servants...

And the government paid them for each slave toiling the soil, with 50 acres a slave given to the owner....

the common wealth also raised it from giving those willing to toil the soil 50 acres, they later raised it to 100 acres for 7 years working it, given to them.... land ownership, which these commoners never had the opportunity in England etc....

Didn't know that....if it's true the govt encouraged and paid people to get slaves......that makes me want an even smaller govt....that's unbelievable......

it was the British Government, but yeah...

I just read this last night and I thought I saved the document pages but can't find it.....i'm gonna keep searching though...

the plantation owners getting bigger and bigger by them being given acres and acres of land to farm tobacco by each person they brought here, slave or indentured servant...

was called a ''HEAD STEAD'' system of being given property per head brought here... later when we became the United States, the State governments made it a ''Home Stead'' system of giving away land and getting more immigrants to come here.

And also, the US gvt gave many acres to those who served in the Revolutionary war as a payment reward!

All, very very very interesting and I have learned so so so many things about our history in this Ancestry search and quest of mine!!! It's even kept me away from USMB!

And sadly, I have a segment of my family tree, that was a part of that ''Head Steading''.....sigh....

 

[Pogo]

DUH!

I wasn't addressing how the physical country was formed but when the FIRST immigration laws came into existence.
What value does your comment add?

Here's a guy who wants to talk about "content value" --- after starting a thread on which hand O'bama wipes his ass with in the toilet.

Ironical troll is ironical.

Try posting some content...and maybe we'll care what you have to say.

Content? WHERE have YOU ever provided a substantiation of any of your totally inane comments? No links! Nothing! Just dumb ass puerile comments!

Can't argue with that one.

I don't think he was talking about me, I post links and all kinds of stuff with my posts...did in this very thread....

Don't know what he was talking about but he addressed it to your post, so there ya go.

 

[Pogo]

Can't get past the lumping together of any people white, black, brown, red, yellow or mixture of.
all white Republicans are not uneducated dirt road trailer trash. nor are all Democrats drug using basement living welfare bums.
any one who is unable to judge a person on there actions & not on political affiliation, skin color, sex or age has problems with critical thinking.

Exactly. And the same hapless folly lies (in both senses) in steamrolling "Indians" into a single homogeneous entity as if some kind of Borg. That's just intentional ignorance.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

If a 'country' is an 'area of land' who defined that 'area of land?'

Such areas could be poorly defined and open to interpretation, which would sometimes lead to conflict between neighboring states over control of portions of the countryside. The most critical factor historically has been the ethno-cultural identities of the peoples who occupied the lands. For example, the ancient Greeks shared a common cultural identity and thus the country of Greece (that is, Hellas) was recognized to exist long before the nation-state The Hellenic Republic ever came into existence.

Moreover, if a country is an area of land, then why don't we call the whole Earth a country?

You are missing the additional factor of the land being occupied by a common ethno-cultural identity. Without that, your suggestion makes as much sense as saying that homo sapiens should all be called one single ethnic group.

A country certainly is a polity because without organization there can be no country.

That is circular.

Like I said, you display ignorance.

Feel free to provide a reference to an academic source that supports your position. So far you are operating on a grade school educational level.

 

[Leo123]

If a 'country' is an 'area of land' who defined that 'area of land?'

Such areas could be poorly defined and open to interpretation, which would sometimes lead to conflict between neighboring states over control of portions of the countryside. The most critical factor historically has been the ethno-cultural identities of the peoples who occupied the lands. For example, the ancient Greeks shared a common cultural identity and thus the country of Greece (that is, Hellas) was recognized to exist long before the nation-state The Hellenic Republic ever came into existence.

Moreover, if a country is an area of land, then why don't we call the whole Earth a country?

You are missing the additional factor of the land being occupied by a common ethno-cultural identity. Without that, your suggestion makes as much sense as saying that homo sapiens should all be called one single ethnic group.

A country certainly is a polity because without organization there can be no country.

That is circular.

Like I said, you display ignorance.

Feel free to provide a reference to an academic source that supports your position. So far you are operating on a grade school educational level.

Without a cohesive, ruling entity there can be no immigration policy. You are just wrong. Ethnicity without organization and immigration policies does not make a country. An 'ethno-cultural identity' is so vague as to be a useless description of a country with an immigration policy. Your assertion that I have made a 'circular' statement is only your flawed description of a country.

 

[Pogo]

"No civilization existed"

That must be why so many 'settlers' looked at the Indians' lifestyle, looked at their own ---- and ran off to join the former. To get away from "civilization".

Oh you dummy! Right... run off to a group that couldn't even put a "wheel" together after 1,000 years!
Also explain to me "HOW MANY" actually RAN off?
What totally exaggerated full of crap statement and I'm part Indian so I can say that!

Sorry, you don't become "part Indian" because you channel-surfed into some reruns of "F Troop".

You have NO idea! I can trace my heritage back to my great-great-grandmother dummy! How about you?

It fills me with no end of delight to report that no, I cannot trace my heritage back to your great-great-great grandmother Dummy.

Weird name too.

I have to admit you are right! I was wrong in my comment as I thought you were intelligent enough not to run to distinct statements together!
So to rephrase the question so a simpleton could understand: Do you have an Native American ancestors?
Or let me rephrase again just in case THAT was too difficult for you to clearly understand.
Is there any Native American DNA in your blood or is it all full of coprophagic material...i.e. are you full of shit?

(1) There is no Native American DNA in my ancestry so far as I know, but then I never claimed such;
(2) You're the only klown around here who started a thread based on which hand a President wipes his ass with;
(3) My digestion is getting along swimmingly, thanks for asking but kindly stop thinking about it, as it well within the character of that area of human obsessions that psychologists term "fucking creepy".

Now then -- to your denial of my point:

>> “There must be in the Indians’ social bond something singularly captivating, and far superior to be boasted of among us; for thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no examples of even one of those Aborigines having from choice become Europeans.” --- Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecoeur "Letters From an American Farmer" (pub 1782) quoted here (p. 4) with more on the topic

>> At one point in the early stages of white settler-colonial consolidation, the settler ruling class greatly feared the possibility of large numbers of whites defecting to live with Indians and adopt the Native way of life. There were many attractions to Native life including the absence of hierarchy and increased democracy; the according of more status and power to women; the absence of religious-social discrimination and persecution; and the acceptance of racial mixture, since "half-breeds" were not stigmatized as they were in white society. Hernando de Soto had to post guards to keep his men and women from defecting to Native Societies. The Pilgrims so feared Indianization that they made it a crime for men to wear long hair. << --- Wicked Theory, Naked Practice: A Fred Ho Reader (University of Minnesota Press 2009) (p. 320)

“No European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in our societies.” --- Benjamin Franklin ​

 

[Godboy]

Or was that by common citizens owning and bearing military grade guns?

What do you think?

If we were getting skilled immigrants who took care of all their own needs without one dime of government assistance, maybe we might be more welcoming. If you don't fall into that category, then you are a scrub, and we don't need any more scrubs.

 

[Pogo]

They were not immigrating......they came here because no civilization existed......

That's not true at all.

Sure it is....hell you lefties call West Virgina backwards....and they are far more advanced than indian tribes in 1600

Uh, really. "indian [sic] tribes" huh? ALL of them?

Because these "indian [sic] tribes" didn't have opioids?

 

[koshergrl]

If a 'country' is an 'area of land' who defined that 'area of land?'

Such areas could be poorly defined and open to interpretation, which would sometimes lead to conflict between neighboring states over control of portions of the countryside. The most critical factor historically has been the ethno-cultural identities of the peoples who occupied the lands. For example, the ancient Greeks shared a common cultural identity and thus the country of Greece (that is, Hellas) was recognized to exist long before the nation-state The Hellenic Republic ever came into existence.

Moreover, if a country is an area of land, then why don't we call the whole Earth a country?

You are missing the additional factor of the land being occupied by a common ethno-cultural identity. Without that, your suggestion makes as much sense as saying that homo sapiens should all be called one single ethnic group.

A country certainly is a polity because without organization there can be no country.

That is circular.

Like I said, you display ignorance.

Feel free to provide a reference to an academic source that supports your position. So far you are operating on a grade school educational level.

Ah...an *academic* source.

Duly reviewed and supported by *academia*.

"About 18 percent of social scientists in the United States self-identify as Marxists, compared to only about 5 percent who identify as conservatives, Dunn and Shields reported."

Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors

 

[Stormy Daniels]

If a 'country' is an 'area of land' who defined that 'area of land?'

Such areas could be poorly defined and open to interpretation, which would sometimes lead to conflict between neighboring states over control of portions of the countryside. The most critical factor historically has been the ethno-cultural identities of the peoples who occupied the lands. For example, the ancient Greeks shared a common cultural identity and thus the country of Greece (that is, Hellas) was recognized to exist long before the nation-state The Hellenic Republic ever came into existence.

Moreover, if a country is an area of land, then why don't we call the whole Earth a country?

You are missing the additional factor of the land being occupied by a common ethno-cultural identity. Without that, your suggestion makes as much sense as saying that homo sapiens should all be called one single ethnic group.

A country certainly is a polity because without organization there can be no country.

That is circular.

Like I said, you display ignorance.

Feel free to provide a reference to an academic source that supports your position. So far you are operating on a grade school educational level.

Ah...an *academic* source.

Duly reviewed and supported by *academia*.

"About 18 percent of social scientists in the United States self-identify as Marxists, compared to only about 5 percent who identify as conservatives, Dunn and Shields reported."

Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors

So where did you get your education from? Or do you not have one?

 

[Pogo]

If a 'country' is an 'area of land' who defined that 'area of land?'

Such areas could be poorly defined and open to interpretation, which would sometimes lead to conflict between neighboring states over control of portions of the countryside. The most critical factor historically has been the ethno-cultural identities of the peoples who occupied the lands. For example, the ancient Greeks shared a common cultural identity and thus the country of Greece (that is, Hellas) was recognized to exist long before the nation-state The Hellenic Republic ever came into existence.

Moreover, if a country is an area of land, then why don't we call the whole Earth a country?

You are missing the additional factor of the land being occupied by a common ethno-cultural identity. Without that, your suggestion makes as much sense as saying that homo sapiens should all be called one single ethnic group.

A country certainly is a polity because without organization there can be no country.

That is circular.

Like I said, you display ignorance.

Feel free to provide a reference to an academic source that supports your position. So far you are operating on a grade school educational level.

Ah...an *academic* source.

Duly reviewed and supported by *academia*.

"About 18 percent of social scientists in the United States self-identify as Marxists, compared to only about 5 percent who identify as conservatives, Dunn and Shields reported."

Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors

Ah, yet another Ass-ociation Fallacy. Promulgated by Asses who think they're making a valid point.
That's so cute.

Boy o boy, associaion fallacy, that takes me back. Haven't seen one of those around here in almost ten seconds.