U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2013, 11:04 AM
 
Location: CHicago, United States
6,936 posts, read 6,990,802 times
Reputation: 3487

Advertisements



Quote:
You wouldn’t know it from the immigration debate going on all year (the bipartisan immigration bill-in-progress, announced this week, is unlikely to mention it), but America’s pioneer values developed in a distinctly illegal context. In 1763, George III drew a line on a map stretching from modern-day Maine to modern-day Georgia, along the crest of the Appalachians. He declared it illegal to claim or settle land west of the line, all of which he reserved for Native Americans.

George Washington, a young colonel in the Virginia militia, instructed his land-buying agents in the many ways of getting around the law. Although Washington was not alone in acquiring forbidden tracts, few were as energetic in the illegal acquisition of western land. And Washington was a model of decorum compared to Ethan Allen, a rowdy from Connecticut who settled with his brothers in a part of the Green Mountains known as the Hampshire Grants (later known as “Vermont”). The province of New York held title to the land, but Allen asserted his own kind of claim: He threw New Yorkers out, Tony Soprano style, then offered to sell their lots to what he hoped would be a flood of fellow illegals from Connecticut.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/op...land.html?_r=0

 
Old 04-26-2013, 11:13 AM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,097,724 times
Reputation: 2199
Where in the article says he was an illegal immigrant?

I am sure the settlers in South & central American ancestors didn't grow from the ground like grass.
 
Old 04-26-2013, 11:35 AM
 
3,186 posts, read 5,452,602 times
Reputation: 1818
If so he was the good kind. Good kinds dont count..lol
 
Old 04-26-2013, 12:32 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico View Post
You are quoting an opinion piece? You are trolling with ignorance. Watafnmron
 
Old 04-26-2013, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Here
10,833 posts, read 11,566,701 times
Reputation: 5928
And the epic display of stupidity continues.....
 
Old 04-26-2013, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Southeast, where else?
3,914 posts, read 4,008,086 times
Reputation: 5781
As far as we know, there were no laws back then against it, the country was relatively empty with the exclusion of the Indians (the ones who REALLY got screwed) soooooooo I guess it wasnt' illegal.

Besides, as far as I know, he didn't get:
  • Free Lunches
  • Free Cell Phones
  • Free Health Care
  • Housing Assistance (until he became president)
  • Free Education
  • Retirement Benefits (until he was no longer president and he had to actually fight in a war to get them if he did)
  • Learn a new language
  • Drive Illegally, horses were cool and as far as I know, he never killed or maimed anyone while driving one...
  • break laws, flee to home country with noooooooooooo accountability
  • chop down cherry trees
What he contributed:
  • Instrumental in the birth of new nation everyone from the village people 2.0 seemed destined to destroy
  • helped to create a bill of rights
  • superior moonshine
  • tobacco
  • helped to generate one of the greatest societies ever known by man
  • Winner of the first American War Games. US 1 Brittain 0
You know, 315 million people later, maybe it's time to shut the doors? I don't know about you but, I do NOT want to end up like India. The Indians here don't want this place to end up like India. Nor, do I wish it to end up like China.

One question, when is enough.....enough? We had amendments to the constitution, maybe we should amend our open door policy. Look what it has done for the WTC, Boston, and Quantico? Keeping the doors open just to keep the doors open is not always a great idea? Even churches shut their doors at night for the most part.

No more teeming masses. We have all the "teeming" masses we can flippin' take. Time to put up the blinking "No Vacancy" Neon sign on the Statue of Liberty's arm and quit APOLOGIZING for it. WE owe NO ONE ANYTHING.....

Except maybe those Indians.....
 
Old 04-26-2013, 01:15 PM
 
Location: CHicago, United States
6,936 posts, read 6,990,802 times
Reputation: 3487
Quote:
What he contributed:
  • Instrumental in the birth of new nation everyone from the village people 2.0 seemed destined to destroy
  • helped to create a bill of rights
  • superior moonshine
  • tobacco
  • helped to generate one of the greatest societies ever known by man
  • Winner of the first American War Games. US 1 Brittain 0
And he was an illegal.
 
Old 04-26-2013, 02:52 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,699,632 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico View Post
And he was an illegal.
He was not here illegally -- for one he was born here, his parents immigrated. His parents didn't break any immigration laws, there were none at the time. The Indians didn't think about having immigration laws because they didn't know about people in other countries.

They also had slavery back then --- so really we can't always look to the past to see how things should be done today.
 
Old 04-26-2013, 03:10 PM
 
31,475 posts, read 14,565,596 times
Reputation: 8350
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
He was not here illegally -- for one he was born here, his parents immigrated. His parents didn't break any immigration laws, there were none at the time. The Indians didn't think about having immigration laws because they didn't know about people in other countries.

They also had slavery back then --- so really we can't always look to the past to see how things should be done today.
I too find with the pro-illegals that they try to use the past as justification for breaking our immigration laws today. I have heard some real dandies like "well if you have ever had a speeding ticket you broke the law also". So this means to them that we should not insist that our immigration laws be enforced if we have ever had a speeding ticket. Or another dandy, "since some immigrants may have come here illegally long ago and they were of your race" that means we shouldn't oppose illegal immigration today. Excuse me but I am not my ancestors. They are all dead now and I am not responsible for what they did or didn't do long ago. If they did come illegally I certainly wouldn't have condoned it any more than I condone illegal immigration today.

My all time favorite is the one where Mexico once held some southwest lands for a short period of time. They lost them in a war and was paid 15 million dollars for those lands plus forgiven many debts by the U.S. But according to the pro-illegals somehow Mexicans should still be entitled to enter our country at will today (tho ole stolen land argument). This is the bizarro world of the pro-illegal immigration movement.
 
Old 04-26-2013, 06:54 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico View Post
And he was an illegal.
Did you read your opinion piece? It has nothing to do with the USA. It has everything to do with England at the time. The USA was non-existant in 1763.

Now to point out your opinion pieces ignorance, here is the a link to the Royal Proclamation and what it entailed. Royal Proclamation of 1763 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
The purpose of the proclamation was to organize Great Britain's new North American empire and to stabilize relations with Native North Americans through regulation of trade, settlement, and land purchases on the western frontier. The Royal Proclamation continues to be of legal importance to First Nations in Canada and is significant for the variation of indigenous status in the United States.
and this
Quote:
The proclamation created a boundary line (often called the proclamation line) between the British colonies on the Atlantic coast and American Indian lands (called the Indian Reserve) west of the Appalachian Mountains. The proclamation line was not intended to be a permanent boundary between white and Aboriginal lands, but rather a temporary boundary which could be extended further west in an orderly, lawful manner.[2][3] Its contour was defined by the headwaters that formed the watershed along the Appalachia—all land with rivers that flowed into the Atlantic was designated for the colonial entities while all the land with rivers that flowed into the Mississippi was reserved for the native Indian population. The proclamation outlawed private purchase of Native American land, which had often created problems in the past; instead, all future land purchases were to be made by Crown officials "at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians". Furthermore, British colonists were forbidden to move beyond the line and settle on native lands, and colonial officials were forbidden to grant grounds or lands without royal approval. The proclamation gave the Crown a monopoly on all future land purchases from American Indians.


Almost immediately, many British colonists and land speculators objected to the proclamation boundary, since there were already many settlements beyond the line (some of which had been temporarily evacuated during Pontiac's War), as well as many existing land claims yet to be settled. Indeed, the proclamation itself called for lands to be granted to British soldiers that had served in the Seven Years' War. Prominent American colonists joined with land speculators in Britain to lobby the government to move the line further west. As a result, the boundary line was adjusted in a series of treaties with Native Americans. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix and the Treaty of Hard Labour (both 1768) and the Treaty of Lochaber (1770) opened much of what is now West Virginia and Kentucky to British settlement.
As usual you create things out of thin air, claim them as fact, then get handed your ignorance on a silver platter. Here's an idea for you, try to attempt some basic research prior to espousing rhetoric which tends to not-favor you.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top