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'm getting tired of the "Nation of Immigrants (TM)" canard, as if every generation of immigrants is indistiguishable from the last. The pioneers of the past came here to build a new nation. They saw a vast, almost unoccupied continent, and wanted to build a new nation in their own image -- a "New Europa".
New migrants, however, are not building a new nation from scratch. They're not homesteaders, rather they're simply replacing Americans and taking over an infrastructure already in place. In contrast, they're actually very different from the immigrants of the past. Ironically, they're almost the exact opposite, in the sense that they're not building a nation -- they're doing quite the opposite -- though immigration cheerleaders from the liberally minded social marxist Democrats to the dittoheaded corporatist Republicans almost NEVER make such a distinction.
I'm getting tired of the "Nation of Immigrants (TM)" canard, as if every generation of immigrants is indistiguishable from the last. The pioneers of the past came here to build a new nation. They saw a vast, almost unoccupied continent, and wanted to build a new nation in their own image -- a "New Europa".
New migrants, however, are not building a new nation from scratch. They're not homesteaders, rather they're simply replacing Americans and taking over an infrastructure already in place. In contrast, they're actually very different from the immigrants of the past. Ironically, they're almost the exact opposite, in the sense that they're not building a nation -- they're doing quite the opposite -- though immigration cheerleaders from the liberally minded social marxist Democrats to the dittoheaded corporatist Republicans almost NEVER make such a distinction.
Great Post! We certainly are not a nation of immigrants. Most American citizens are native born to this country.
I'm getting tired of the "Nation of Immigrants (TM)" canard, as if every generation of immigrants is indistiguishable from the last. The pioneers of the past came here to build a new nation. They saw a vast, almost unoccupied continent, and wanted to build a new nation in their own image -- a "New Europa".
New migrants, however, are not building a new nation from scratch. They're not homesteaders, rather they're simply replacing Americans and taking over an infrastructure already in place. In contrast, they're actually very different from the immigrants of the past. Ironically, they're almost the exact opposite, in the sense that they're not building a nation -- they're doing quite the opposite -- though immigration cheerleaders from the liberally minded social marxist Democrats to the dittoheaded corporatist Republicans almost NEVER make such a distinction.
Unpopular perhaps, but all this is true---and indicative of our new "kinder, gentler" society. Defend illegal immigration if you will; that's your privilege and your right; but don't stoop to comparing it with past immigration into a much tougher and less accomodating society; that's just not a fair argument...
It's not a fair comparison because conditions now aren't the same as conditions in the past---didn't you START this thread? Isn't that what YOU YOURSELF said? I would think you, more than anyone, would see why comparing today's situation with the past is like comparing apples with oranges---unless I'm missing something here, or there are, in fact, two "James T's"?....perhaps the "Good James T" and the "Bad James T"....I thought the forum didn't allow for duplication of names.......
It's not a fair comparison because conditions now aren't the same as conditions in the past---didn't you START this thread? Isn't that what YOU YOURSELF said? I would think you, more than anyone, would see why comparing today's situation with the past is like comparing apples with oranges---unless I'm missing something here, or there are, in fact, two "James T's"?....perhaps the "Good James T" and the "Bad James T"....I thought the forum didn't allow for duplication of names.......
You still haven't shown what's not fair about my comparison. There are still vast undeveloped areas in the U.S. where land can be purchased, yet modern immigrants just want to crowd into our already overcrowded cities, all the while organizing into ethnically based socio-economic organizations in order to advance the life quality of their specific enclave. Now, show me how I'm not assesing modern immigrants fairly.
You still haven't shown what's not fair about my comparison. There are still vast undeveloped areas in the U.S. where land can be purchased, yet modern immigrants just want to crowd into our already overcrowded cities, all the while organizing into ethnically based socio-economic organizations in order to advance the life quality of their specific enclave. Now, show me how I'm not assesing modern immigrants fairly.
I see the confusion here--my rebuttal was not directed at YOU, I now realize, but to those of your opponents (notice I said "defend illegal immigration if you will", etc.) who are insisting that all immigration, at all periods in history, was carried out under equal conditions. To THOSE people, I was saying "you can't compare what happened then with what's happening now"......too many "third person" references, I guess....
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.
