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.
According to the dictionary an invasion is an uninvited intrusion. To my knowledge the Irish didn't come here uninvited by the U.S. government so no, they weren't invaders.
merrian webster's: 1: an act of invading; especially: incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
oxford english dictionary: noun1 an instance of invading. 2 the action or process of being invaded.
people just get caught up with buzzwords. mexicans coming to the US illegaly is unlike an invasion of the sort i pointed out in my previous post. even non militarily speaking, such as the "invasion" of privacy, where someone's right to be left alone etc is violated by snooping on their private matters, doesn't compare to what people here are trying to call an "invasion"
transgression is a much more appropriate word; as is trespassing.
the irish in the 19th century faced all kinds of crap when they arrived here.. by no means were they welcomed with open arms. they were accused of "taking jobs" and increasing violence, given stereotypes such as being drunkards, lazy, stupid and dirty. they were "responsible" for economic problems and ruining society. so how exactly does this differ from what mexicans are accused of today?
just some of the things that ran in newspapers of that time, which also included job postings with the clause: "No Irish Need Apply"
this one's titled: "The irish way of doing things"
this one compares regular women's faces to that of an irish woman.. "Bridget McBruiser" lol
It doesn't necessarily have to be a military invasion.
As for the Irish, they came here legally with the approval of our government. It is irrelevant whether or not they were accepted by the rest of society.
Most Mexicans are coming here illegally without the approval of our government. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
lol that is the 4th option given @ dictionary.com, and merrian webster's and oxford english dictionary are more authoritative than "dictionary.com"
regardless, all you needed to come here legally during that time was to arrive at a boston or new york port.. then you were let in. i'd say the hardships they were facing (the irish) are a lot worse than what mexicans face now, so to think that they wouldn't have come here illegally if entry to the country wasn't allowed is kind of foolish. those people were desperate.
government "disapproval" is just a front they put up to maintain a position that they are against illegal immigration... a lot of corporations, companies, small businesses etc hire illegals because it is convenient for them to do so and benefit from cheap labor, your or my objections to the problem be damned.. if illegal immigration was a REAL concern for the government, they would've done something about it.. obviously other things such as healthcare, 2 wars, about 10% unemployment and so on are what the govt is more concerned with.
the irish came here legally and weren't given jobs.. mexicans come here illegally and work in many different sectors of the economy. why would INVADERS be given so many opportunities to work? if they are so "harmful" and "intruding" on our "peace" and "security"
"invaders".. the irish, the chinese, i guess the italians also to some extent were considered this.. and now its the mexicans turn.. the chinese were also "invaders" at some point (while at the same time working on railroads and gold mines n whatever else)... hence the chinese exclusion act..
just some of the things that ran in newspapers of that time, which also included job postings with the clause: "No Irish Need Apply"
Now the newspaper ads say "bilingual only", which excludes a lot of Americans who would dearly love a job - any job.
The Irish were treated like crap while the Mexicans are given the key to the city.
lol that is the 4th option given @ dictionary.com, and merrian webster's and oxford english dictionary are more authoritative than "dictionary.com"
regardless, all you needed to come here legally during that time was to arrive at a boston or new york port.. then you were let in. i'd say the hardships they were facing (the irish) are a lot worse than what mexicans face now, so to think that they wouldn't have come here illegally if entry to the country wasn't allowed is kind of foolish. those people were desperate.
government "disapproval" is just a front they put up to maintain a position that they are against illegal immigration... a lot of corporations, companies, small businesses etc hire illegals because it is convenient for them to do so and benefit from cheap labor, your or my objections to the problem be damned.. if illegal immigration was a REAL concern for the government, they would've done something about it.. obviously other things such as healthcare, 2 wars, about 10% unemployment and so on are what the govt is more concerned with.
the irish came here legally and weren't given jobs.. mexicans come here illegally and work in many different sectors of the economy. why would INVADERS be given so many opportunities to work? if they are so "harmful" and "intruding" on our "peace" and "security"
"invaders".. the irish, the chinese, i guess the italians also to some extent were considered this.. and now its the mexicans turn.. the chinese were also "invaders" at some point (while at the same time working on railroads and gold mines n whatever else)... hence the chinese exclusion act..
Whether the definition of an invasion is first or fourth in the dictionary is not the issue. It just means there is more than one way to define an invasion.
Continue to argue apples and oranges if you like but the fact is that the Irish came here under whatever immigration policies we had at the time. Mexicans are not coming here under the immigration policies that we have in place today. Yesterday's policies are irrelevant in today's world.
Yes, thanks for reminding us that the employers are circumventing our laws by hiring illegal aliens with a wink and a nod by our government and they are both in this together. You're point is? It still doesn't make it ok as it is the U.S. citizen that is the one getting screwed. Is that ok with you?
Now the newspaper ads say "bilingual only", which excludes a lot of Americans who would dearly love a job - any job.
The Irish were treated like crap while the Mexicans are given the key to the city.
Exactly! Were Americans being forced to learn Gaelic to get a job in their own country back then? We are being forced to learn Spanish to get a job in our own country today because of the high percentage of Spanish speakers in our country who aren't even here legally unlike the Irish who were here legally back then.
^last 3 points would support my argument that this is not an "invasion" by any definition of the word.
because unless you believe the government and everybody else in the country are idiots, no country would ever WELCOME invaders.. it is contradictory to call it that. unless its the french. lol im joking
but yes why would an intrusive, harmful and unwanted "invasion" be welcomed the way you both agree they are?
because it is not an invasion. it is an intrusion, it is a transgression, they are trespassers. id like to add that at no point have i said that there is nothing wrong with illegal immigration, i just wanted to point out the poor choice of words of certain people and answer the op why the army isnt at the border. especially with yet another poor choice of words, "fight off" illegal immigrants.
i rest my case.
Exactly! Were Americans being forced to learn Gaelic to get a job in their own country back then? We are being forced to learn Spanish to get a job in our own country today because of the high percentage of Spanish speakers in our country who aren't even here legally unlike the Irish who were here legally back then.
In all fairness: precious few Irish even spoke Gaelic back then.........that language was on the verge of extinction 150 years ago. Otherwise your post is spot on.
^last 3 points would support my argument that this is not an "invasion" by any definition of the word.
because unless you believe the government and everybody else in the country are idiots, no country would ever WELCOME invaders.. it is contradictory to call it that. unless its the french. lol im joking
but yes why would an intrusive, harmful and unwanted "invasion" be welcomed the way you both agree they are?
because it is not an invasion. it is an intrusion, it is a transgression, they are trespassers. id like to add that at no point have i said that there is nothing wrong with illegal immigration, i just wanted to point out the poor choice of words of certain people and answer the op why the army isnt at the border. especially with yet another poor choice of words, "fight off" illegal immigrants.
i rest my case.
And what is wrong in fighting off illegal aliens AKA criminals (within the law)?
Why won't the army fight of illegals at the border?
1. Its not up to them who they get to fight. That would be congress etc.
2. remember the peeing contest when Bush first sent National Guard troops to help on the border? Everybody wants to be the boss.
3. If given the choice I am 99% sure most of our soldiers would prefer duty on the border to duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.
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.
