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.
I was reading a few old threads about the overwhelmingly Indian nature of illegal immigrants from Mexico and other parts of Latin America and the relevance of this to their status as "illegal immigrants."
My belief is that there are two central lines of ethical argument about the topic of illegal immigration; the utilitarian line of argument and the deontological line of argument. These lines of argument also characterize applied ethics more generally. The utilitarian line of argument is primarily based on the consequences of illegal immigration, namely its impact on social welfare. The deontological line of argument is primarily based on the fact that regardless of consequences, the territory of the United States is the property of the citizens of the United States, and foreign nationals can legitimately be excluded for any reason that the citizens (or ruling political administration) of the United States sees fit.
I wish to address the “deontologist” argument against illegal immigration, incorporating the essential fact that the majority of illegal immigrants from Latin America are descendants of Native Americans in full or in part and advancing a strong libertarian argument that aggression is illegitimate.
We must note that American territory and resources were not justly acquired. The Americas were seized from their indigenous inhabitants by means of force and fraud after infectious plagues devastated their population numbers to a catastrophic extent. The existing states in North and South America (and surrounding portions of the Western Hemisphere) are all illegitimate social institutions built upon unjust aggression, and the national divisions between them are therefore similarly illegitimate.
Moreover, since the majority of the Mexican population and effectively all of the lower classes of the Mexican population are descendants of the indigenous peoples of Mexico in full or part, they have been adversely affected by the establishment of the state of Mexico, which is ruled by a political system that places white elites (primarily of Spanish descent) at the top of the social hierarchy and the indigenous majority at the bottom. This is paralleled in other Latin American countries that Indians emigrate from. Guatemala, if legitimately democratic, would be a Mayan republic.
It would be simplistic and inaccurate to say "Most Mexicans (and effectively all Mexican illegal immigrants) are Indians; therefore, since America (the continent pair) was stolen from Indians, all of it must be given back." Amerindians are not and never were a homogenous socio-cultural group; they are a race with various national and cultural divisions, just as Europeans were and are. Moreover, while Indian nations obviously did not organize themselves according to current national boundaries and plenty of groups existed on both sides of the modern U.S.-Mexico border (such as the Apache, or in modern times the Tohono O'odham), most of the Indians of Mexico have little ancestral claim to lands in the present day U.S., since the majority are from the southern portion of Mexico in Mesoamerica, which is quite geographically disconnected from the U.S. And the Indians of Central and South America have effectively no ancestral claim over modern U.S. lands whatsoever.
However, the division of American territory into modern states had profound impacts on the indigenous populations of those various states. The development of America in the absence of European intervention would likely have ultimately entailed a confederation of Indian nations similar to the union that currently exists between European nations, given the divisions of natural resource endowments and technological innovation (such as the absence of draft animals in most of America and the presence of the wheel in a region where they did not exist) and the need to cooperate. But even if America had become inhabited by a collection of constantly warring dictatorial states in the absence of European intervention, that did not occur. Rather, Anglo and Hispanic supremacy and the establishment of Anglo and Hispanic states occurred. So we still must consider the wants of the indigenous population of the United States and the nations that characterize their political organization, such as the Cherokee, the Navajo, etc. Since almost all natives endured universal dispossession, there has been a creation of pan-Indian sentiment that did not previously exist. An Iroquois can sympathize with a Cherokee, who can sympathize with a Blackfoot, who can sympathize with a Serrano, who can sympathize with a Huichol, who can sympathize with a Tzotzil, who can sympathize with an Inca or Aymara, etc. Their nations all underwent the same unjust dispossession at one point or another. It is for that reason that I do not believe that the Indian nations of America would choose to exclude each other.
In realistic terms? The nation-states of the Americas are here to stay for a while. It is not feasible to return them to the administrative control of Indian nations and the descendants of the original indigenous population. But considering the fact that the unjust acquisition of the territory and resources therein is a matter of historical fact and given that this continues to affect the modern population of America (affecting the indigenous population of America particularly brutally), it is foolish and delusional to pretend that the political administration of the U.S. has, on deontological grounds, an ethical right to restrict the immigration of persons of indigenous descent from Latin America, or that the political administration of Mexico has an ethical right to restrict the immigration of persons of indigenous descent from Central America. Whether this should be done because of the consequences is a far more relevant issue and promises to be a far more fruitful topic of discussion. The premise of there being a sound deontological case, however, is entirely without merit.
If you wish to base an entire argument for illegal immigration on Deontological ethics, then you have shot yourself in the foot right out of the gate. Deontological ethics judges the morality of any action based upon that action's adherence to a rule or rules. Laws are rules set forth by societies, by cities, states, and finally, by sovereign nations. A sovereign country does have an ethical right and an ethical duty to restrict immigration into its own sovereign borders for the sake of its own citizens. This is not a teleological argument.
Additionally, there are NO indigenous peoples in the New World. They are descendants of immigrants--just as every other person in the world is a descendant of immigrants. The only people who can truly make the case for indigenous status are those who live, as did their ancestors, in Africa. In addition, current anthropological theory postulates that many of those who populated present day South and Mesoamerica likely did so not only in multiple migrations but accomplished this feat by means of water travel, completely by-passing modern day North America.
By the way, have you actually spoken to any Native Americans regarding illegal immigration? I have--many as a matter of fact. I have yet to speak to a single one who views the invasion from south of the border as an influx of brothers who are worthy of empathy and solidarity. The vast majority of Mexicans are not fully aboriginal. They are mestizo--of mixed European and aboriginal blood, and their unlawful entry into this country is not viewed sympathetically by the vast majority of First Nation's people I have spoken to--and in my line of work, I speak to many.
By the advent of colonization, thousands upon thousands of years separated these people. They may have originated from the same area of the world, but culturally, linguistically, and spiritually, they are completely different cultures. For you to assume some sort of "pan-Indian" solidarity based upon a shared colonization psychic unity smacks of Eurocentrism. Ask the Shoshone and Arapaho if they "sympathize" with each other based upon this imagined solidarity of yours....I doubt you'll get the answer you're expecting.
By the way, the sort of pretentious hype you've trotted out above would be better served in a different sort of forum. Most people aren't going to bother to wade through that mass of hyperbolic posting in an attempt to get to the meat of your argument.
I was reading a few old threads about the overwhelmingly Indian nature of illegal immigrants from Mexico and other parts of Latin America and the relevance of this to their status as "illegal immigrants."
My belief is that there are two central lines of ethical argument about the topic of illegal immigration; the utilitarian line of argument and the deontological line of argument. These lines of argument also characterize applied ethics more generally. The utilitarian line of argument is primarily based on the consequences of illegal immigration, namely its impact on social welfare. The deontological line of argument is primarily based on the fact that regardless of consequences, the territory of the United States is the property of the citizens of the United States, and foreign nationals can legitimately be excluded for any reason that the citizens (or ruling political administration) of the United States sees fit.
I wish to address the “deontologist” argument against illegal immigration, incorporating the essential fact that the majority of illegal immigrants from Latin America are descendants of Native Americans in full or in part and advancing a strong libertarian argument that aggression is illegitimate.
We must note that American territory and resources were not justly acquired. The Americas were seized from their indigenous inhabitants by means of force and fraud after infectious plagues devastated their population numbers to a catastrophic extent. The existing states in North and South America (and surrounding portions of the Western Hemisphere) are all illegitimate social institutions built upon unjust aggression, and the national divisions between them are therefore similarly illegitimate.
Moreover, since the majority of the Mexican population and effectively all of the lower classes of the Mexican population are descendants of the indigenous peoples of Mexico in full or part, they have been adversely affected by the establishment of the state of Mexico, which is ruled by a political system that places white elites (primarily of Spanish descent) at the top of the social hierarchy and the indigenous majority at the bottom. This is paralleled in other Latin American countries that Indians emigrate from. Guatemala, if legitimately democratic, would be a Mayan republic.
It would be simplistic and inaccurate to say "Most Mexicans (and effectively all Mexican illegal immigrants) are Indians; therefore, since America (the continent pair) was stolen from Indians, all of it must be given back." Amerindians are not and never were a homogenous socio-cultural group; they are a race with various national and cultural divisions, just as Europeans were and are. Moreover, while Indian nations obviously did not organize themselves according to current national boundaries and plenty of groups existed on both sides of the modern U.S.-Mexico border (such as the Apache, or in modern times the Tohono O'odham), most of the Indians of Mexico have little ancestral claim to lands in the present day U.S., since the majority are from the southern portion of Mexico in Mesoamerica, which is quite geographically disconnected from the U.S. And the Indians of Central and South America have effectively no ancestral claim over modern U.S. lands whatsoever.
However, the division of American territory into modern states had profound impacts on the indigenous populations of those various states. The development of America in the absence of European intervention would likely have ultimately entailed a confederation of Indian nations similar to the union that currently exists between European nations, given the divisions of natural resource endowments and technological innovation (such as the absence of draft animals in most of America and the presence of the wheel in a region where they did not exist) and the need to cooperate. But even if America had become inhabited by a collection of constantly warring dictatorial states in the absence of European intervention, that did not occur. Rather, Anglo and Hispanic supremacy and the establishment of Anglo and Hispanic states occurred. So we still must consider the wants of the indigenous population of the United States and the nations that characterize their political organization, such as the Cherokee, the Navajo, etc. Since almost all natives endured universal dispossession, there has been a creation of pan-Indian sentiment that did not previously exist. An Iroquois can sympathize with a Cherokee, who can sympathize with a Blackfoot, who can sympathize with a Serrano, who can sympathize with a Huichol, who can sympathize with a Tzotzil, who can sympathize with an Inca or Aymara, etc. Their nations all underwent the same unjust dispossession at one point or another. It is for that reason that I do not believe that the Indian nations of America would choose to exclude each other.
In realistic terms? The nation-states of the Americas are here to stay for a while. It is not feasible to return them to the administrative control of Indian nations and the descendants of the original indigenous population. But considering the fact that the unjust acquisition of the territory and resources therein is a matter of historical fact and given that this continues to affect the modern population of America (affecting the indigenous population of America particularly brutally), it is foolish and delusional to pretend that the political administration of the U.S. has, on deontological grounds, an ethical right to restrict the immigration of persons of indigenous descent from Latin America, or that the political administration of Mexico has an ethical right to restrict the immigration of persons of indigenous descent from Central America. Whether this should be done because of the consequences is a far more relevant issue and promises to be a far more fruitful topic of discussion. The premise of there being a sound deontological case, however, is entirely without merit.
The invasion from the South would have been no more welcomed by Indian tribes living on the land the States occupy now. Various tribes such as the Apache would have viewed it as a hostile act and there would have been much blood. There was constant warring between the tribes that were here to begin with much the less what would have been if mass migration came from the South.
The invasion from the South would have been no more welcomed by Indian tribes living on the land the States occupy now. Various tribes such as the Apache would have viewed it as a hostile act and there would have been much blood. There was constant warring between the tribes that were here to begin with much the less what would have been if mass migration came from the South.
My great-grandmother told me the stories her father told her of Mexicans paying Texans two dollars a pair for the ears of our people. This was after 1821 when Mexico had won its war for independence from Spain.
Additionally, Mexico carried on with Spain's inhumane and brutal treatment of the Native Americans of the Southwest and California.
According to my cousins, who live on the Ft. Sill reservation in Oklahoma, there is no feeling of kinship with Mexico or its people.
I'd like to see some Mexican Nationals try and sneak into one of the Reservations, drop a kid and then try to enroll them into a local school like how they abuse our Public system.
I'd like to see some Mexican Nationals try and sneak into one of the Reservations, drop a kid and then try to enroll them into a local school like how they abuse our Public system.
Not sure about Mexican nationals but; quite a few Mexican Americans have married Apaches here in Arizona.
If you wish to base an entire argument for illegal immigration on Deontological ethics, then you have shot yourself in the foot right out of the gate. Deontological ethics judges the morality of any action based upon that action's adherence to a rule or rules. Laws are rules set forth by societies, by cities, states, and finally, by sovereign nations. A sovereign country does have an ethical right and an ethical duty to restrict immigration into its own sovereign borders for the sake of its own citizens. This is not a teleological argument.
On what grounds? What underlying moral principles do you refer to? In the case of clear unjust acquisition (inasmuch as gains through force, fraud, and coercion are unjust), I see no basis for regarding territorial claims inherited from this unjust acquisition as ethically sound or legitimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
Additionally, there are NO indigenous peoples in the New World. They are descendants of immigrants--just as every other person in the world is a descendant of immigrants.
The only people who can truly make the case for indigenous status are those who live, as did their ancestors, in Africa.
In that case, your usage of the term "aboriginal" is also inaccurate. Since you've committed the same technical error, why not focus on the fact that we're speaking of the fact that various Amerindian nations established correspondingly various societies and civilizations that underwent ethically unjust destruction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
In addition, current anthropological theory postulates that many of those who populated present day South and Mesoamerica likely did so not only in multiple migrations but accomplished this feat by means of water travel, completely by-passing modern day North America.
Mexico is deep in North America, nowhere near South America, and a significant portion is outside of Mesoamerica. This is the same serious error that you made in the other thread regarding this topic; the assumption that "North America" is all north of the U.S.-Mexico border, and all south of that border is "Mesoamerica" and "South America." That is openly false.
It is well accepted that the Americas were the last continents reached by modern humans, most likely through Beringia. However, the precise time and mode of the colonization of the New World remain hotly disputed issues. Native American populations exhibit almost exclusively five mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups (A–D and X). Haplogroups A–D are also frequent in Asia, suggesting a northeastern Asian origin of these lineages. However, the differential pattern of distribution and frequency of haplogroup X led some to suggest that it may represent an independent migration to the Americas. Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models. A detailed demographic history of the mtDNA sequences estimated with a Bayesian coalescent method indicates a complex model for the peopling of the Americas, in which the initial differentiation from Asian populations ended with a moderate bottleneck in Beringia during the last glacial maximum (LGM), around 23,000 to 19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started 18,000 and finished 15,000 years ago. These results support a pre-Clovis occupation of the New World, suggesting a rapid settlement of the continent along a Pacific coastal route.
By the way, have you actually spoken to any Native Americans regarding illegal immigration? I have--many as a matter of fact. I have yet to speak to a single one who views the invasion from south of the border as an influx of brothers who are worthy of empathy and solidarity.
Certainly. However, I'd not cite my own personal experiences, as I realize that anecdotal "evidence" is effectively useless. The widely varying spectrum of human experiences is so heterogenous that citation of individual reports is quite worthless when attempting to make mass judgments of this nature. We need to consider large data sets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
The vast majority of Mexicans are not fully aboriginal. They are mestizo--of mixed European and aboriginal blood, and their unlawful entry into this country is not viewed sympathetically by the vast majority of First Nation's people I have spoken to--and in my line of work, I speak to many.
Mestizos are Amerindians as mulattoes are blacks; the physical characteristics of the darker race tend to be dominant. Regardless, the insinuation that the vast majority of Mexicans are "half-breeds" (as that's what mestizos are understood as) is inaccurate. CIA World Factbook data places the Amerindian population at 30% and the mestizo population at 60%, leaving the white population at 9% and the "other" population at 1%. Other estimates lower the Amerindian population to 15% and elevate the mestizo and white populations to 70 to 80% or 16%, respectively. This is indicative of the failure to distinguish between mestizos and Amerindians, as the majority of mestizos are predominantly Amerindian, particularly the impoverished illegal immigrants from the southern portions of Mexico. Similarly, most African-Americans are predominantly black (about 80%), which is why there is no cause for reference to them as "mulattoes" despite their admixture, as that would imply half-breed status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
By the advent of colonization, thousands upon thousands of years separated these people. They may have originated from the same area of the world, but culturally, linguistically, and spiritually, they are completely different cultures.
Also false, and based on your earlier mistake of assuming that currently existing borders between nation-states constituted divisions between indigenous peoples' own nations. But they never served as a basis for division between indigenous nations prior to European contact and does not today; the case of the Tohono O'odham alone should illustrate that.
The Huichol, for example, have nothing whatsoever to do with "Mesoamerica," least of all "South America." They are in the same Southwestern cultural category that the Pueblo peoples are, and are more closely related to them than the Seneca or Oneida are. However, the premise of a complete disconnection between all the Amerindians of the U.S. and all the Amerindians of Mesoamerica is also incorrect. Perhaps you've not heard of the Uto-Aztecan language family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
For you to assume some sort of "pan-Indian" solidarity based upon a shared colonization psychic unity smacks of Eurocentrism. Ask the Shoshone and Arapaho if they "sympathize" with each other based upon this imagined solidarity of yours....I doubt you'll get the answer you're expecting.
Your comment reminds me of David Yeagley's remark (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=23607 - broken link):
Quote:
The group leaders – most of whom were white – kept telling us we had to build solidarity with Mexico’s "indigenous" people. But we couldn’t see the purpose. We were American Indians. What did we have to do with Mexico?
This seems fairly reasonable when casually examined. But amalgamation of U.S. Indians is already a "European" construct. What had the Cherokee to do with the Iroquois and what had either to do with the Ute? Nothing. There were closer cultural relations between the Apache and the Tarahumara than between the Apache and the Blackfeet. Hence, if U.S. Indians can already join in this artificial unity in such groups as the American Indian Movement on the basis of shared experiences, it's not a stretch to incorporate Indians of other countries into a collective movement, since they all underwent the same unjust dispossession, especially when some of the "cusp" groups are more closely related to each other than to other Indian nations in their European-established countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
By the way, the sort of pretentious hype you've trotted out above would be better served in a different sort of forum. Most people aren't going to bother to wade through that mass of hyperbolic posting in an attempt to get to the meat of your argument.
I was gracious enough with your own post; that's evidence enough of a willingness to tolerate the seemingly intolerable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
The invasion from the South would have been no more welcomed by Indian tribes living on the land the States occupy now. Various tribes such as the Apache would have viewed it as a hostile act and there would have been much blood. There was constant warring between the tribes that were here to begin with much the less what would have been if mass migration came from the South.
The Apache were themselves a "bi-national" tribe, as they existed on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. The famous picture of Geronimo (a Chiricahua) and a small band of followers that's become so popular for its "Homeland Security" theme? Taken in Mexico. While you're certainly correct that various Apache bands would have attacked the ancestral nations of many modern Mexican immigrants, that's hardly the point. They would have also attacked (and did) Navajo and Hopi settlements (just as the English attacked Scots, but does that mean they constantly war now?), but that's hardly a basis for conflict and dispute between them today because they recognize a greater injustice that affected all of them more severely. As mentioned, groups such as the American Indian Movement already unite a number of substantially diverse peoples with vast cultural differences based on their shared legacy. That is already a "pan-Indian" movement of sorts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear
Memo to the OP: both 1AngryTaxPayer and Kele are of at least part Apache heritage so they know of what they speak of re: invaders from SoB.
And? Most African-Americans are of at least part European heritage, 20% on average. That hardly entitles them to be Grand Wizard candidates. Let's not linger on this silly one-drop rule and smiling and nodding at every Anglo who regales us with tales of his Cherokee princess grandmother. Inasmuch as Kele looks like she might have come over on Leif Ericson's voyage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
My great-grandmother told me the stories her father told her of Mexicans paying Texans two dollars a pair for the ears of our people. This was after 1821 when Mexico had won its war for independence from Spain.
Additionally, Mexico carried on with Spain's inhumane and brutal treatment of the Native Americans of the Southwest and California.
In the "nation as a person" fallacy, the actions of "Mexico" can rightfully be condemned. What would be accurate, though, is to admit that Mexico remained under the administrative control of white persons of Spanish descent, as it largely does today. So when we speak of the Mexican government, they have indeed been historical oppressors of indigenous peoples, which was the cause for the Zapatista insurrection, with that group primarily composed of Tzotzil Mayans. Your point goes nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
According to my cousins, who live on the Ft. Sill reservation in Oklahoma, there is no feeling of kinship with Mexico or its people.
More anecdotal sentiments. If I cited some accounts from Mescaleros that contradicted your reports, would that "prove" me correct? No. But I admit that Mexican Indians have undergone socio-cultural corruption: Indians and Mestizos in the Americas
Quote:
Many governments define "Indians" as people who live in native communities and speak only a native tongue. When an Indian moves to a city and learns Spanish or another language, he or she is no longer considered "indigenous", but "mestizo."
I'd like to see some Mexican Nationals try and sneak into one of the Reservations, drop a kid and then try to enroll them into a local school like how they abuse our Public system.
Again, no basis in empirical research, but this is related to the consequentialist (utilitarian) line of thought rather than the deontological one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear
Not sure about Mexican nationals but; quite a few Mexican Americans have married Apaches here in Arizona.
"Mexican-Americans" are by their very nature Mexican nationals or former Mexican nationals. It's trendy for the U.S.-born descendants of those people to claim to be "Mexican" or "Mexican-American," but this is no more accurate than claiming that the U.S.-born descendants of Canadians are also Canadian or Canadian American. Mexicans are a national group and not a race or ethnic group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
And they did it all legally too vs climbing over a fence and lying.
No substantive comments from you...he spoke of the U.S. born descendants of Mexicans, though inaccurately.
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.
