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.
Well, much as I hate to lend ANY ammunition to the Mexico bashers (who make all kinds of often irrational arguments in my opinion) I have to say that from a historical perspective (a field I originally intended to teach) there is some precident for referring to it as an "invasion". You need to go back a ways, but there are definite similarities between the current situation the US finds itself in and Rome in it's declining days (odd as that may sound).
Everyone had heard of the Barbarian Invasions that eventually brought down the Roman Empire, but the fact is, most peoples views of those events are pretty inaccurate. Folks tend to picture the invading "Barbarians" as fur-clad, heavily-bearded wildmen screaming like animals and waving enormous battleaxes over their heads like maniacs.
The fact is, for the most part, that was not nearly the case. The many Barbarian Invasions were not "invasions" in the classical sense. What they often were, were whole groups of families (men, women, children) - usually farmers and often numbering in the thousands or tens of thousands. These were people who - often because of lawlessness on their side of the border (caused by Hunnish raiders from further east) - were seeking sanctuary (and a piece of the "Roman Dream" so to speak (specifically referring to peace and prosperity)) in the Land of the Romans.
They flooded across the Rhine and the Danube - sometimes in small groups, sometimes in large groups - in places where the Roman frontier forces were stretched too thin to keep them out. Once on the other side, they clustered together for mutual protection, support and the comfort of being with people like themselves. The history of the Visigoths is particularly interesting and offers quite a few parallels to the current situtation. This was a case where a whole group of people crossed the border seeking sanctuary and with a strong desire to "Romanize" themselves. They were not seeking to conquer the Romans, nor loot and pillage - they were were simply seeking to become a part of that great nation they saw across the river, a place where they could enjoy peace and prosperity and have a decent shot at a decent life, when their own homeland was in a state of constant turmoil.
The Roman emperor (Valens), wanting to avoid what he saw as a costly campaign and thinking that he could put the extra manpower to use (in his case in the military) allowed them to stay and in fact an agreement was hammered out to provide the refugees with land, food and water - providing they stayed put in the area they had settled. Unfortunately the enormous number of Visigoths simply overtaxed the supply system set up by the Romans - there were simply far too many of them for the Romans to be able to deliver on their promise - and soon famine broke out in the Barbarian camps and newly-created villages. I must stress again that these were NOT wild bloodthirsty raiders, they were simple farmers with their wives, sons and daughters - but they WERE frontier people who knew how to fight, and when faced with the prospect of watching their families slowly die of starvation they rose up in anger. The Romans in turn then revoked their promise of land and the whole deal fell through.
At this, the whole lot of Visigoths decided to pick up and move throughout the countryside, taking what they needed - and when the Romans resisted, open warfare broke out - resulting in a long period of on and off war, the death of a Roman Emperor, the sacking of Rome itself and the eventual establishment of an independent Visigothic Kingdom throughout much of the Empire.
Aside from the final chapters of this story, it has many similarities with the current situation along the America-Mexican border - the flood of immigrant families across the river in search of a better life and out of fear of trouble in their homeland, the settlement of such immigrants largely into areas where others like them have already settled, the lure of government sponsored aid and the potential inability to continue to provide that aid because of excessive numbers of immigrants. There is also the fact that the government of Rome, like (at least as claimed here) the politicians in Washington, envision(ed) putting this labor force to good use.
All of these things should sound very familiar. It is the story of a rich and powerful nation - the most powerful on earth actually - facing a number of broad and serious challenges. It is the story of an empire that collapsed not with a bang, but with a whimper, as year after year of such incursions wore the central government (and it's budget) down. A decreasing native population made the prospect of "fresh blood" a bit more attractive than it might have been otherwise (especially for the military where there was a chronic shortage of troops) and faced with increasing budgetary and security issues there was a drive to handle more and more of such matters at a local level (sound familiar folks?) resulting in less and less relevance of the national government. Local leaders became more and more influential (in many cases these were recently settled foreigners) and the Emperor became less and less important. The result is that when the last Roman Emperor was deposed in 476, most of what remained of the Empire barely noticed since they had long since begun to depend on themselves rather than the central government.
So, does a lot of this sound a bit familiar?
There are also of course, differences - many of which are substantial. Rome was not America, it did not have a tradition of immigration (though it did have a tradition of foriegners joining the Empire (though conquest of course)). There is also the fact that our central government is far from collapse - though certainly it faces some severe budgetary challenges (though admittedly at the beginning of the Barbarian Invasions, the Roman central government was far from collapse as well). There is also the very important fact that at the time of Rome's fall (referrring here of course to the Western Roman Empire) there was no uptrend in the status of the nations around it the way there is today. Today, the world in general is not in decline, in fact just the opposite is true. The nations of the Third World are on the rise, with more and more people seeing their collective futures looking brighter and brighter. To be sure, many challeges remain ahead, but global population pressures are starting to ease (particularly in Mexico, where 20 years from now there will probably be a labor SHORTAGE) and with that, some real hope for nations that previously had very little (look at the economic growth in India and China for example). Over the long run this will surely result on less immigration (both legal an illegal) into the US.
So, I don't think you can look at Rome and say "yes the same thing will happen to America" because the situation is not quite that clear-cut. However, there are things common and thus I can easily see folks employing the term "Invasion". It is NOT an invasion in the traditional sense, and I certainly don't buy into the "Atzlan" garbage posted on this board. The vast majority of Mexicans coming here have no intention of turning the US into Mexico -any more than the millions of Chinese who came and founded the many Chinatowns or the millions of Italians who came and settled in "Little Italy's" wanted to turn America into China or Italy. Folks will simply bring part of their culture with them - that's the way people are. It doesn't indicate a nerfarious intention to subvert American culture - rather it indicates they are human beings like anyone else. American's overseas do the same thing whereever they settle.
In short however, if the term "Invasion" can be used to describe what happened to Rome, then I can see how some folks could apply the term to the current situation in the US. It is not an invasion in the traditional sense, but then again neither was were the Barbarian invasions of Rome.
Ken
I agree with about 95% of what you posted in your treatise
Where did Nea1 state that she hated 'Hispanics'? She was referring to illegal immigrants who happen to be 'Hispanic'.
sure she did. Read the thread again. This time for content. Her neighbors, who she clearly dispises, are Hispanic. But she claims the inate ability to tell that they are not only hispanic but illegal.
Hey Urso...am I legal? Is my wife? If you have the gift as well here is your chance to use it..
sure she did. Read the thread again. This time for content. Her neighbors, who she clearly dispises, are Hispanic. But she claims the inate ability to tell that they are not only hispanic but illegal.
Hey Urso...am I legal? Is my wife? If you have the gift as well here is your chance to use it..
The rabidly pro- illegal alien types almost invariably:
1. are illegal themselves
2. have relatives who are illegal
or
3. benefit from illegal immigration in some way
(subprime mortgages, anyone?)
If it reaches the point where the discourse is civil you may find out.
The deep and repeated demonstration of hatred on this list is well established. Has nothing to do with the facts or arguments. Mess of folk here just hate hispanics. It is often cloaked in "illegal" guise. But it is pretty clear. Your own aversion of hispanic neighbors would be a fine example. How would you know who is, or is not, illegal?
Lord Balfor apparently agreed.
They may deny it, but no amount of sugar coating covers it up.
What is wrong about those? Most people who believe in open borders and the ending of all immigration laws for the USA have some reason they believe the way they do.
Often they believe in unlimited cheap labor -- the lower the wages can be -- the better because obviously they profit in some way from lower wages. Or they are illegals who benefit by coming here and accepting those low wages because those wages are still somewhat better than they have back home.
I don't see any compassion involved in open borders because it would really be better for people to work on reforming their own country so that it's liveable -- and that would help far more people. As it is, only those managing to get out benefit, but nothing is improved so the rest will end up having to leave.
It's also not compassionate to want Americans to suffer through declining wages and job discrimination. We already have more people in prison than just about any where. We're not getting jobs for our inner city youths, we're not solving our own problems.
sure she did. Read the thread again. This time for content. Her neighbors, who she clearly dispises, are Hispanic. But she claims the inate ability to tell that they are not only hispanic but illegal.
Hey Urso...am I legal? Is my wife? If you have the gift as well here is your chance to use it..
What if someone believes that all immigrants should respect and abide by our laws, and that immigration should be fair and orderly, and that no one group of people has unlimited rights to come here but that people of all countries should have the same opportunity to immigrate here -- yet the whole entire world isn't going to be able to immigrate here?
What if someone believes a law-abiding Ethiopian has more rights to come here and get citizenship than someone from Mexico who chooses to break the laws of this country? Who shows more respect for this country?
Isn't it quite racist to insist that while others should follow our laws, that one so-called race is not required to follow any laws they don't want to follow or that immigration is to be heavily just one so-called race and others can just forget it?
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.
