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.
My family tree points to all of my ancestors being on North American soil prior to the founding of the United States of America, and thus predate immigration law.
To my knowledge all residents of the real estate claimed at the time were decreed to be citizens, so they were the first "naturalized" citizens and their immigration status was made moot. I wonder if the people of the time cared about how their next door neighbor arrived as they moved toward a new governmental identity.
My family tree points to all of my ancestors being on North American soil prior to the founding of the United States of America, and thus predate immigration law.
To my knowledge all residents of the real estate claimed at the time were decreed to be citizens, so they were the first "naturalized" citizens and their immigration status was made moot. I wonder if the people of the time cared about how their next door neighbor arrived as they moved toward a new governmental identity.
The same could be said about Mexico after about 1810, Guatemala after 1830, Texas a few years later and so on. From those dates forward, all those places became countries so those new countries' laws applied to everything, not just citizenship.
My family tree points to all of my ancestors being on North American soil prior to the founding of the United States of America, and thus predate immigration law.
To my knowledge all residents of the real estate claimed at the time were decreed to be citizens, so they were the first "naturalized" citizens and their immigration status was made moot. I wonder if the people of the time cared about how their next door neighbor arrived as they moved toward a new governmental identity.
Hmmm... if I understand correctly you point is that, prior to the founding of the United States, when North America was a huge unpopulated wilderness in need of settlers, people probably didn't care much about controling immigration. And while America may have 300 plus million people now, that reality should have no bearing on current attitudes toward immigration because... well, that's where you you lost me.
Everyone does know that the US government didn't used to send out welfare checks, right? Extra babies didn't earn premiums. It used to be that you supported yourself and your family, just flat out, you did it. Good ole' days.
Hmmm... if I understand correctly you point is that, prior to the founding of the United States, when North America was a huge unpopulated wilderness in need of settlers, people probably didn't care much about controlling immigration. And while America may have 300 plus million people now, that reality should have no bearing on current attitudes toward immigration because... well, that's where you you lost me.
My point is How many of our proud citizens who are descended from Americans since the founding of the country are actually descended from folks who arrived here without vetting from an immigration committee or having filled out any forms or taken any citizenship test? All of our founding fathers immigrated without a legal immigration policy.
In essence until the US passed immigration laws, everyone was an illegal immigrant by today's standards. Granted, at the time there was no such law so at that time there was no illegality. The ratification of the Constitution was the first "Amnesty" program for US citizens. All of our founding fathers and blue blood Mayflower descendants were beneficiaries of that program.
I believe that immigration laws need to be fair and equal, but they do need to be enforced. If there is another amnesty program it should be defined to include those immigrants we desire to stay and exclude those we do not. Those that do not qualify should be deported. If that number is 10,999,999........so be it. Cost should not be a primary consideration, the welfare of our nation should be. Divert some of the war on drugs money to deportation of illegal drug offenders, that will offset a significant portion based on my personal observations of persons in the trade over the years. What percentage, I could not tell you, but it will be a measurable percentage.
There is nothing wrong with immigration, or amnesty programs when done for the right reasons and using logical criteria. Nobody has a high moral ground in the citizen vs non-citizen debate except those that have gone through the cumbersome immigration legal process and have become naturalized citizens. Anyone gaining their citizenship through birth has no right to deny anyone else the right to try to become a citizen. Everybody who is a legal citizen has the right to demand that anyone collecting the benefits of citizenship actually become a citizen.
Our constitution and Bill of Rights demand the concept that all people are due certain "inalienable" rights and select privileges. Nowhere does it say who must provide those privileges, nor does it say those benefits above and beyond those inalienable rights are due to anyone. Citizens benefit from membership and can receive them, but why should they share them with non-members? If you want the club benefits, join the club. The right way.
Prior to 1776 the country was still mostly a violent wilderness and the country needed people to work to tame it.
Today we have too many people and way too many who are taking advantage of our generosity to the point that citizens are being taxed more and more to take care of the illegal immigrants.
There are only so many resources to go around and importing more people is not a recipe for success.
were there laws against immigration prior to 1776? no, thus any one immigrating to this "country" is not illegal because no laws were broken.
There were territorial laws and treaties held by landowners prior to 1776 and they were violated. So, one can call it illegal immigration. However, they were not U.S. laws since the nation did not exist yet (not that it matters for the purpose of this thread).
Prior to 1776 the country was still mostly a violent wilderness and the country needed people to work to tame it.
Today we have too many people and way too many who are taking advantage of our generosity to the point that citizens are being taxed more and more to take care of the illegal immigrants.
There are only so many resources to go around and importing more people is not a recipe for success.
Plus Europe was encouraged people to migrate to the New World to build a Empire. Jamestown 1603 /St. Augustine ( Spain )
I do agree there are many who's only purpose is to get free stuff. We are in a modern Age and it is true we can not provide safe harbor to anyone and keeps the wheels on the bus going!
There were territorial laws and treaties held by landowners prior to 1776 and they were violated. So, one can call it illegal immigration. However, they were not U.S. laws since the nation did not exist yet (not that it matters for the purpose of this thread).
The Statute of Limitations has run out. Not just for the US either; Mexico, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Russia and so on when talking about land being stolen back and forth.
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.
Managed Immagration!
