TOP 5 IMMIGRATION MYTHS OF THIS CAMPAIGN SEASON: Ending the Immigration Spin - Just the Facts (2009, medical)

[Arizona Bound]

I said that's when my family came.. I never indicated how many came at that time... So I will rephrase it.. as far as it has been researched, so far.. my family roots have been traced back to 1702, coming from england. better?

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by Kele

Yeah, well I posted less than this from an article, just a teaser and was banned for a week. It's difficult to tell on this forum, exactly where the line in the sand is drawn.

I'd watch how much I post if I were you.

Odd: I have said some incendiary things in the past and received but one warning from a Moderator----------it was an 'informal' one with no neg rep point at all.

BTW: that same Mod has come down pretty hard on several other posters (both pro and anti illegal) here on the open Forum-------and, rightly so IMHO

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by Arizona Bound

I said that's when my family came.. I never indicated how many came at that time... So I will rephrase it.. as far as it has been researched, so far.. my family roots have been traced back to 1702, coming from england. better?

Much clearer now. But presents problems. If they were HERE in 1702 (even a FEW of them), and they lived along the Atlantic seaboard (which they probably DID, coming from England), then they didn't come "here", they came to one of several British colonies. If they then stayed around, they were undoubtedly in the area in 1776. If that's true, they probably had a part in an "illegal action" at the time---namely, the violent overthrow of the legal government of the area, and the installation of a new, illegal one...called the "United States of America". In a sense, you could say ALL the folks in that era instantly became "illegals", unless they "did the right thing" as a few did, and fled to the more law-abiding areas of Canada or The Bahamas...where they were called "loyalists". The early "Americans" were, at THAT time, "DIS-loyalists".

Don't get me WRONG---I'm GLAD that illegal rebellion took place. My ancestors came along later, and benefitted. And I DO NOT want another "revolution", just because we had one ALREADY...

I'm only pointing out the many "leaps of faith" that come up in ALL such 'histories' on ALL sides. I think ALL of us, or our ancestors, have made compromises, given up a few things, and made an arbitrary decision to be Americans, and that's the only POSSIBLE way to BE an American, unless, like my wife, your ancestors were here FIRST...and then, ironically, you WOULDN'T have been "American" at ALL, until sometime in the 1920's.....go figure.

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by macmeal

Much clearer now. But presents problems. If they were HERE in 1702 (even a FEW of them), and they lived along the Atlantic seaboard (which they probably DID, coming from England), then they didn't come "here", they came to one of several British colonies. If they then stayed around, they were undoubtedly in the area in 1776. If that's true, they probably had a part in an "illegal action" at the time---namely, the violent overthrow of the legal government of the area, and the installation of a new, illegal one...called the "United States of America". In a sense, you could say ALL the folks in that era instantly became "illegals", unless they "did the right thing" as a few did, and fled to the more law-abiding areas of Canada or The Bahamas...where they were called "loyalists". The early "Americans" were, at THAT time, "DIS-loyalists".

Don't get me WRONG---I'm GLAD that illegal rebellion took place. My ancestors came along later, and benefitted. And I DO NOT want another "revolution", just because we had one ALREADY...

I'm only pointing out the many "leaps of faith" that come up in ALL such 'histories' on ALL sides. I think ALL of us, or our ancestors, have made compromises, given up a few things, and made an arbitrary decision to be Americans, and that's the only POSSIBLE way to BE an American, unless, like my wife, your ancestors were here FIRST...and then, ironically, you WOULDN'T have been "American" at ALL, until sometime in the 1920's.....go figure.

Why isn't that nice to know

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

I want to cut off my fingers right about now.. really. Anyone want to jump in and help me get my point through this guy? Its getting pretty ridiculous having to break down and spoon feed this guy.

Why am I pro-amnesty for Mexicans? I am not. I am pro-amnesty for people of all genders race e.t.c RACE IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. Why am I pro-amnesty? 1, they already doing it for the Cubans. Why not even things up? 2, It would be really costly and inefficient to find, convict and deport all illegals.

Political asylum and amnesty are not the same thing.

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Political asylum and amnesty are not the same thing.

Do you agree? Race is not the issue?

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

Do you agree? Race is not the issue?

*scratches head*

I said nothing about race.

I corrected your misinterpretation of political asylum as being synonymous with amnesty. It's not.

Do you agree? The Giants will race to a Super Bowl win?

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

*scratches head*

I said nothing about race.

I corrected your misinterpretation of political asylum as being synonymous with amnesty. It's not.

Do you agree? The Giants will race to a Super Bowl win?

We'll have to see

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

We'll have to see

See what? Whether amnesty and political asylum are two very different things?

Trust me. They are two distinct ideas. All the self-deluding twisted rhetoric in the world cannot change that fact.

[mkfarnam]

And they both need to be put in a "floating asylum"