Pilgrims were illegal immigrants

[miami_thomas]

Miami -

The problem here is that you have misunderstood what some liberals have said. Or, at lleast, you are taking it FAR too literally.

Of course no nation state existed in America in 1700, so you are right that no laws were broken.

BUT - we now consider that the first people or race to live in an area own the land. There is no question that American Indians owned much of what is now the USA, and neither is there any question that this land was seized by violent conquest.

In 2013, most people would consider that conquest illegal.

I suggest you forget the whole left/right nonsense, and try and look at history a little more objectively.

The Indians had nations and laws.

Do tell us the history of the Indian nations. Can you tell us what their laws were dealing with immigration? Can you also tell us where their national borders were? Do you have a map by chance?

 

[Katzndogz]

Miami -

The problem here is that you have misunderstood what some liberals have said. Or, at lleast, you are taking it FAR too literally.

Of course no nation state existed in America in 1700, so you are right that no laws were broken.

BUT - we now consider that the first people or race to live in an area own the land. There is no question that American Indians owned much of what is now the USA, and neither is there any question that this land was seized by violent conquest.

In 2013, most people would consider that conquest illegal.

I suggest you forget the whole left/right nonsense, and try and look at history a little more objectively.

The Indians had nations and laws.

Do tell us the history of the Indian nations. Can you tell us what their laws were dealing with immigration? Can you also tell us where their national borders were? Do you have a map by chance?

In 1971 Paul Revere and the Raiders had a song with a line that said "They took the whole indian nation, put us on this reservation". Indian nation, right there. That's what passes for American history today.

 

[miami_thomas]

Miami -

A lot of land has been settled by conquest, you are right, but if we look at a map of Europe in around 1700 (the time nation states came to first be considered as an idea) we can see that a lot of peoples had largely mapped out the land they still live in.

As just one example - Italy did not become a country until something like 1860, but the various Italian groups (Piedmont, Lombard, Genoa) were living where they still live today. No land was taken by conquest - they just joined forces.

I agree that American Indians did not occupy ALL of what is now USA - but they did occupy large swathes of it, and their ownership of that land is, to my mind, abundantly clear. I am sure maps from that era would be able to define an area that the Sioux owned, for instance, without it being too imaginary.

The pilgrims landed peacefully, granted - but they did not move west in peace. They committed what comes very close to genocide in some cases. Americans need to accept and respect that.

So you get to pick when civilizations move against nomad barbarians ends on a set date? You realize there were many things that occurred around those dates and there were attacks on the “White Man” from the friendly Indians at those times and massacres occurred back then at the hands of Indians. They were not a nation of people they were a nomadic people that moved from place to place. To compare that to Italian citizens that stayed in one set location is not even close to a fair comparison. Now if you want to compare them to the roaming band of barbarians of Germany, the Vikings, or even the Mongolians then that would be a fair comparison. They were not a civilized nation state.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The very premise of this thread is just about as stupid as any I have ever seen.

 

[miami_thomas]

The Indians had nations and laws.

Do tell us the history of the Indian nations. Can you tell us what their laws were dealing with immigration? Can you also tell us where their national borders were? Do you have a map by chance?

In 1971 Paul Revere and the Raiders had a song with a line that said "They took the whole indian nation, put us on this reservation". Indian nation, right there. That's what passes for American history today.

Again to say they were a nation state and that the entire American continent belonged to them is just not a fact. The fact is they were a wondering nation and when they wondered back to where white man had settled into what they felt was their land they started a war. Sure you could say that the white man invaded their territory but to say that was any different than the civilizations elsewhere in Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia, and Britian is just wrong.

 

[miami_thomas]

The Indians had nations and laws.

Do tell us the history of the Indian nations. Can you tell us what their laws were dealing with immigration? Can you also tell us where their national borders were? Do you have a map by chance?

In 1971 Paul Revere and the Raiders had a song with a line that said "They took the whole indian nation, put us on this reservation". Indian nation, right there. That's what passes for American history today.

The very premise of this thread is just about as stupid as any I have ever seen.

Good intelligent argument there.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

No more so than Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were when they walked on the Moon, No more so than when Admiral Perry sailed the American fleet into Japanese waters, breaking their isolation or when Captain Cook landed on Easter Island. Someone needs to find a highway mile marker somewhere to mount Senor Betances head on. But thats what the Obama administration has been all about for the past four, turning the American fabric upside down, making hardworking Americans who, work, save, and provide for themselves and their families, the villains as well as villainizing those who succeed, generally telling all Americans what you thought was black is now white and what you thought was white is now black. Oh and by the way the sun now rises in the West, in case you haven't noticed.
Take a clue from Argentina where the president there just finished raping the pensioners funds to build housing for the homeless and other little goodies in return for their votes, then turned around and told the pensioners "We know you're too old and weak to provide for yourselves anymore but you're going to have to, because the funds we had for you are now gone."

 

[Saigon]

So you get to pick when civilizations move against nomad barbarians ends on a set date? You realize there were many things that occurred around those dates and there were attacks on the “White Man” from the friendly Indians at those times and massacres occurred back then at the hands of Indians. They were not a nation of people they were a nomadic people that moved from place to place. To compare that to Italian citizens that stayed in one set location is not even close to a fair comparison. Now if you want to compare them to the roaming band of barbarians of Germany, the Vikings, or even the Mongolians then that would be a fair comparison. They were not a civilized nation state.

It makes sense to go only as far back in history as the concept of nations existed. At that point we can start to get a snapshot of history in terms of nations, as opposed to principalities and tribes.

Some time around 1800 we saw nations beginning to form, and from that time on I think we can consider that many nations existed in effect, if not in law. Many nations date back earlier, of course.

The fact remains - settlement of much of the US took place through force, and could be considered illegal.

 

[editec]

The native Americans were illegal aliens if we follow liberal logic.

If they really believe such are they going back to Europe or wherever?

No, I think not, they are just spreading division.

there is nothing remotely "liberal" about that logic.

There is ALSO nothing remotely LOGICAL about the argument in the first place.

 

[NoNukes]

In that case the first person ever owns the entire earth and we are all illegal and should get on a space ship and leave.

This is so stupid that I cannot continue to read this thread.

And I’ll bet you think that was an intelligent response.

Just the fact.

 

[miami_thomas]

So you get to pick when civilizations move against nomad barbarians ends on a set date? You realize there were many things that occurred around those dates and there were attacks on the “White Man” from the friendly Indians at those times and massacres occurred back then at the hands of Indians. They were not a nation of people they were a nomadic people that moved from place to place. To compare that to Italian citizens that stayed in one set location is not even close to a fair comparison. Now if you want to compare them to the roaming band of barbarians of Germany, the Vikings, or even the Mongolians then that would be a fair comparison. They were not a civilized nation state.

It makes sense to go only as far back in history as the concept of nations existed. At that point we can start to get a snapshot of history in terms of nations, as opposed to principalities and tribes.

Some time around 1800 we saw nations beginning to form, and from that time on I think we can consider that many nations existed in effect, if not in law. Many nations date back earlier, of course.

The fact remains - settlement of much of the US took place through force, and could be considered illegal.

It was Illegal under what law? What are you talking about? What law was there that said at the time that people were spreading out claiming land continually. What law are you talking about that they broke? What law? Please tell what law was broken. At the time America was being settled by humans, humans all over the planet were still spreading and fighting over land. It had always occurred and by your logic every nation is criminal.

 

[NoNukes]

Miami -

The problem here is that you have misunderstood what some liberals have said. Or, at lleast, you are taking it FAR too literally.

Of course no nation state existed in America in 1700, so you are right that no laws were broken.

BUT - we now consider that the first people or race to live in an area own the land. There is no question that American Indians owned much of what is now the USA, and neither is there any question that this land was seized by violent conquest.

In 2013, most people would consider that conquest illegal.

I suggest you forget the whole left/right nonsense, and try and look at history a little more objectively.

The Indians had nations and laws.

Do tell us the history of the Indian nations. Can you tell us what their laws were dealing with immigration? Can you also tell us where their national borders were? Do you have a map by chance?

If you do some research, all of these questions will be answered. If not, remain ignorant v

 

[Saigon]

Miami Thomas -

If it was illegal for a white settler to shoot another white settler and take his land - it was also illegal for him to shoot an American Indian and steal his land.

You'll find many colonised peoples (New Zealand Maori, Scandinavian Lappi) have established this in courts, and are being paid compensation.

It had always occurred and by your logic every nation is criminal.

No, because very few nation states took land by violent conquest. In Europe (and excluding Hitler), I can't think of any major ones from the time nation states became indepdendent.

 

[miami_thomas]

This is so stupid that I cannot continue to read this thread.

And I’ll bet you think that was an intelligent response.

Just the fact.

Well if you are not intelligent enough to debate then you are probably not intelligent enough to read this thread. In that case I understand you statement completely.

 

[Twofox]

Damn, this is like separating 2 kids.

Folks, the world we live in is the way it is for any number of reasons. Arguing about that in order to change things is childish. Accept where we are, and let's move forward. You want to change things? There is a process already in place called constitutional amendment that can change anything we want to. But calling illegal immigrants anything other than what they are (illegal since they are breaking laws) is assinine. Grow up, grow a pair, and realize that you live in America. Love it or leave it.

 

[miami_thomas]

Miami Thomas -

If it was illegal for a white settler to shoot another white settler and take his land - it was also illegal for him to shoot an American Indian and steal his land.

You'll find many colonised peoples (New Zealand Maori, Scandinavian Lappi) have established this in courts, and are being paid compensation.

Again I said there were wrongs done but to pretend it was just by "White Settlers" is ignoring the fact that Indians were extremely dangerous. They killed a lot of “White Settlers” to take cattle from the “White Settlers”. That was their way but that does not make it right that they killed. If you were there then, you would have killed Indians as well. Not to take their land but to defend your land and your family.

Pre-state people were not peaceful as they may make it seem. They were extremely violent. They used to kill each other as well as “White Settlers”. They killed other Indians long before “White Settlers” showed up. Sure we like to paint them now as the always peaceful pre-state people. But the truth is they were extremely violent and bones are found all over this nation and the world that shows pre-state people killed often with axes and arrows. Many cut off heads and scalped their victims.

The fact is American Indians like other nomadic barbarians were far more violent than civilized people. The movies have made a fairy tale about what the Indians were really like. Indians were killing each other for hundreds of years long before European Man showed up. It was the way they lived and it was the way all nomadic people lived before civilizations began.

It was also not as if there was not an attempt to make it peaceful even trying to have laws to keep have Americans to stay off Indian land and Indians stay off the settled lands. But there was violence on both sides. There are reports of Indians coming into settled territory and killing men, women, and children and scalping them. It was a constant battle but to look back now and pretend it was all one sided is just not the facts.

 

[Saigon]

Miami -

American Indians were defending their land.

White people were trying to steal it.

That's a worthy difference to note.

 

[Katzndogz]

Miami -

American Indians were defending their land.

White people were trying to steal it.

That's a worthy difference to note.

Liberal revised history is certainly strong. American Indians weren't defending their land since they had no concept of land ownership. Likewise, land couldn't be stolen.

Before the arrival of the Europeans, the Indian tribes were constantly at war. Not to defend land, but to steal women and children from other tribes and drive them from hunting grounds. I wish we would teach real history again, but it's not likely to happen as long as we permit liberalism./

 

[Saigon]

Katz -

I think you will find that American Indians lived on land, and had done for thousands of years.

The fact that they did not issue land ownership documents is of no possible relevance here.

btw. Please do not pretend you want history to be taught. You want extreme right wing propaganda taught. At least be honest about it.

 

[miami_thomas]

Miami -

American Indians were defending their land.

White people were trying to steal it.

That's a worthy difference to note.

Again just because they lived on North America did not mean the whole continent belonged to them. There were no borders as they were roaming nomads. You do understand that if you are constantly moving then really you have no home land right? Again your argument is that just because they moved over land at one point made the land theirs. By that argument all civilized nations stole land from someone. That is just a fact. Again it was part of the transformation from a nomadic people to a civilized people and it happened all over the planet. To pretend that the case between Americans Settlers and the Indians was any different is a prejudice point of view.