Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Legal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-21-2014, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Delray Beach
1,135 posts, read 1,771,091 times
Reputation: 2533

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
The actual native Americans would disagree and would probably have strong words of how we founded this country and our immigration here in the first place. Everyone for the most part is an immigrant here or related to those who moved here except for the actual natives that got pushed to little plots of tribal land.
Actually not!
This term was supposedly coined by Ivy League Liberals as a PC antidote to American Indian, a term actually PREFERRED by a plurality of ..American Indians!

According to an article from PBS.org:
"..despite the supposed political correctness of Native American, it has not become the preferred term. "The acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian," according to the fourth edition of the American Heritage Book of English Usage, published in 2000. "Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population."

Nor did the word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described. A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.

Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'" He continues:

It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiaqs. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins. ... As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity."

So there!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2014, 01:54 PM
 
26,194 posts, read 21,605,372 times
Reputation: 22772
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjarado View Post
Actually not!
This term was supposedly coined by Ivy League Liberals as a PC antidote to American Indian, a term actually PREFERRED by a plurality of ..American Indians!

According to an article from PBS.org:
"..despite the supposed political correctness of Native American, it has not become the preferred term. "The acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian," according to the fourth edition of the American Heritage Book of English Usage, published in 2000. "Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population."

Nor did the word Indian fall out of favor with the people it described. A 1995 Census Bureau survey that asked indigenous Americans their preferences for names (the last such survey done by the bureau) found that 49 percent preferred the term Indian, 37 percent Native American, and 3.6 percent "some other name." About 5 percent expressed no preference.

Moreover, a large number of Indians actually strongly object to the term Native American for political reasons. In his 1998 essay "I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!", Russell Means, a Lakota activist and a founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), stated unequivocally, "I abhor the term 'Native American.'" He continues:

It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiaqs. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins. ... As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity."

So there!


With all of that are you a descendant of one of those native groups or a product of immigrants?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:04 PM
 
62,995 posts, read 29,178,555 times
Reputation: 18604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
With all of that are you a descendant of one of those native groups or a product of immigrants?
None of our first ancestors were native to this country including the so-called native Indian's ancestors. They like everyone else migrated here from somewhere else so they were immigrants also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:09 PM
 
26,194 posts, read 21,605,372 times
Reputation: 22772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
None of our first ancestors were native to this country including the so-called native Indian's ancestors. They like everyone else migrated here from somewhere else so they were immigrants also.

So you benefited from said immigration policy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:11 PM
 
62,995 posts, read 29,178,555 times
Reputation: 18604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Your legal quota is "x" and the illegal figures are "100x"

If you raise x and the illegal numbers move in the opposite direct it's a net benefit, in more ways than one
I already explained to you that adding more poor, uneducated and skilled to our legal quotas is a net burden to our society and the reasons why. So waving a magic wand and making illegals legal does nothing to change the above. We don't need more legal immigrants than we have already. We have a shortage of jobs and resources. Remove the incentives for those already here illegally to remain here and that will also deter more illegal immigration aka your "100x" ficticious figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:12 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 1,041,781 times
Reputation: 1730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
The actual native Americans would disagree and would probably have strong words of how we founded this country and our immigration here in the first place. Everyone for the most part is an immigrant here or related to those who moved here except for the actual natives that got pushed to little plots of tribal land.
Irrelevant platitudes solve everything!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:17 PM
 
62,995 posts, read 29,178,555 times
Reputation: 18604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
The actual native Americans would disagree and would probably have strong words of how we founded this country and our immigration here in the first place. Everyone for the most part is an immigrant here or related to those who moved here except for the actual natives that got pushed to little plots of tribal land.
Don't care if they disagree or not. The fact remains that no one is a native to this country unless they were born here and the first ancestors of the so-called native Indians were not born here. They migrated here just like everyone else did unless you think they sprouted up out of the ground like corn. No, American citizens are not immigrants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:19 PM
 
62,995 posts, read 29,178,555 times
Reputation: 18604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
So you benefited from said immigration policy?
My ancestors came here legally under the U.S. government's immigration policies at the time. Just where do you think you are going with this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:23 PM
 
26,194 posts, read 21,605,372 times
Reputation: 22772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
I already explained to you that adding more poor, uneducated and skilled to our legal quotas is a net burden to our society and the reasons why. So waving a magic wand and making illegals legal does nothing to change the above. We don't need more legal immigrants than we have already. We have a shortage of jobs and resources. Remove the incentives for those already here illegally to remain here and that will also deter more illegal immigration aka your "100x" ficticious figure.


More legal immigration doesn't mean uneducated, unskilled etc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:25 PM
 
62,995 posts, read 29,178,555 times
Reputation: 18604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Where are you getting billions of people? You simply are making things up. Americans are very wasteful with food, water and other resources. Just google americans wasteful with water and then do it again with food. Do you seriously not consider your fellow Americans to be wasteful? I'm not sure what world you live in but I see it daily
There are 2 billion impoverished people across the world that would love to come here. It's our country if we want to waste food, water, etc. it's our business, isn't it? Some people may be wasteful but not the majority of Americans. What does any of that have to do with illegal immigration anyway? There is still only so much ariable land space we can build on to accommodate more foreigners. Or would you like to be like India and stacked in like sardines with wall to wall cement everywhere? Why are you so in love with foreigners? We already allow in over 1 million legal immigrants a year and you do know we have 23 million unemployed Americans, don't you? In simple terms there are no jobs for more foreigners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Legal Immigration

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:09 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top