Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way, many of them actually pay taxes but aren't represented in our legislatures because they have no voting rights. So they can hardly veto anything.
They aren't represented in our Congress? Then what's all the fuss about CIR and the DREAM Act? Even the President is pushing it. C'mon mountainman you can't really be that naive can you? Can't only a Governor or the President actually veto something?
Many of them also obtain numerous benefits, to include tax returns of more than they paid in. As for paying taxes, many pay local taxes (sales), while many have tax with holdings from paychecks they receive fraudulently and claim all the deductions they can on their tax forms (using an ITIN) thus they usually have negative tax returns (receiving more money due to tax credits like ACTC then they actually had withheld. State taxes they have so little withheld that they usually receive them back. So, please explain to us how they help by paying taxes.
Your definition of American is taking out of context the definition as used. Nice game change though.
Does the term "native" make any assumptions on the parentage of the person it is applied to? The true context of "Native American" (I cannot readily think of any other comparable example) does mean that at least one parent would also be defined as "Native American". But at some point tracing back that fails.
"American" can be a bit ambiguous, it may be preferable to refer to ourselves by nationality or citizenship instead...
...As War Chief was he not assigned to protect his tribe(s)? Wouldn't that make it his territory, too?...
So, in making Geronimo out to be some sort of Supervisory Border Patrol Agent level, did the Apache still not have a concept of immigration laws applied to outsiders?...
So, in making Geronimo out to be some sort of Supervisory Border Patrol Agent level, did the Apache still not have a concept of immigration laws applied to outsiders?...
It depended upon whom they considered friends; of the 7 Apachean tribes, they fought against one another as enemies. I would say they had no understanding of immigration law. Only an understanding of trade or take, if you had something they wanted you either traded with them or they raided you and took it.
How do you know they didn't? And whether or not they did, they were still a part of the flotilla that came here and disenfranchised the Native American of their land.
Does it matter? We're now a full on country called the US. I'm quite sure the native American Indians did exactly the same things to other tribes long before the Hispanics came here. Yes; the Hispanics were here BEFORE the anglos.
Think of it this way: it's impossible to separate people's ways of doing things and bloodlines now. Hitler tried in Europe with the Jewish people and people where were NOT Jewish but had a grandfather of that religion. Thank God he was stopped but his followers murdered lots of people who did nothing wrong and were citizens of Germany and so on.
Does the term "native" make any assumptions on the parentage of the person it is applied to? The true context of "Native American" (I cannot readily think of any other comparable example) does mean that at least one parent would also be defined as "Native American". But at some point tracing back that fails.
"American" can be a bit ambiguous, it may be preferable to refer to ourselves by nationality or citizenship instead...
National and citizen are the same thing. The only difference between a native born American and, say, a Mexican who came here legal and got his US citizenship is he can't run for POTUS or Vice President.
"American" with no other word means a citizen of the US, period.
What I can't figure out is how a white American alive today can be called a hypocrite for wanting our immigration laws respected based on some ancestor's actions long ago. Are we to be held accountable for their actions? What about those of us who oppose illegal immigration and whose ancestors didn't even come here until this country was established as the U.S. with borders and immigration laws? (and that would include all races, ethnic groups and nationalities that came here much later) Are they also hypocrites for wanting our immigration laws respected today? Am I a hypocrite if I have a bank robber in my ancestry and yet oppose bank robbery today? Aren't we all individuals only responsible for our own actions? This whole argument about hypocricry over a past we had no control over is mind boggling to me to say the least.
Last edited by chicagonut; 03-03-2012 at 07:13 AM..
Reason: spelling
So YOu are saying that the Amerindian tribes needed a written language, unified across the entire landmass that laid out their immigration rules to be in effect, but when it came to treaties of offering beads in exchange for land, those sorts of transactions didn't need to be recorded in writing on both sides, or even approved by all of the Amerindian inhabitants across that same landmass?...
Isn't there some disparity in that statement?...
Am I correct in assuming that based on your above statements that you agree with the topic heading and opening statement of this thread then?
The United States was founded by.........
Illegal Immigrants. Ask the Native Americans. You are all hypocrites and are the descendants of illegal immigrants. Of course back then they where called Pioneers and Explorers but it's the same difference.
The irony is they are standing there holding rifles from the 1800's.
What a pity that we cannot reach into a time machine and bring back Goyathlay (Geronimo) and his warriors back and hire them to patrol the border, what a marvelous job they would do. Would not even have to pay them or equip them, just allow them to keep any loot they took. 19th century weapons would be just fine. Apaches had a deep seated seething hatred of first the Spanish and then the Mexicans that went back long before Americans came to the Southwest.
Am I correct in assuming that based on your above statements that you agree with the topic heading and opening statement of this thread then?
The United States was founded by.........
Illegal Immigrants. Ask the Native Americans. You are all hypocrites and are the descendants of illegal immigrants. Of course back then they where called Pioneers and Explorers but it's the same difference.
My comments on the topic have been how the Amerindian societies are being devalued here, considering them not "civilized" for lacking a written language to have immigration laws, but maximizing their comprehension skills when it came to treaties. Carrying the concept over that then immigration to those Amerindian lands was "legal" is mostly flawed, with most U.S. expansion (both before and after founding) into Amerindian lands actually being encroachment (study the root term of that word) without true land ownership transfer treaties. As commented before, my own ancestors immigrated in 1887 at the latest, with some of my lines being present before the United States was founded, but all ultimately immigrants to the area of the United States.
I am unwilling to define their presence in the United States as either being "legal" or "illegal", although I can understand why an Amerindian perspective may call them "illegal"...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
C'mon mountainman you can't really be that naive can you? 
Can't only a Governor or the President actually veto something? 
