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.
It still makes no damn sense. BTW, there is NO fuss about hispanics in the South West, just illegals. If he truly wanted to do what you said, he would have mentioned the difference between being here legally and illegally. He didn't go that route because to him, it doesn't matter if you're here legally or illegally, that land is theirs.
Why would he make that distinction? When he referred to the Mexicans that were in California etc. before it was US territory, he would have had to say that the newly arriving European settlers were the illegals
I don't really believe in that distinction between legal and illegal immigrants anymore. We just invented that concept in order to keep people out we don't want, cherry pick, etc. Many of the Europeans that came to the Americas were unskilled, uneducated people, exactly the same kind of people we now try to keep out.
You see, we have rules/laws for immigrating, and if you don't follow those rules, you are breaking the law.
More people immigrate (legally) to the USA than anywhere else in the world.
These people are criminals. They break the law. We owe them nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Romans were barbarians themselves in the eyes of the Celts and Germanic tribes, but we tend to just buy into Roman propaganda scripture...
Why would he make that distinction? When he referred to the Mexicans that were in California etc. before it was US territory, he would have had to say that the newly arriving European settlers were the illegals
There were very few "Mexicans" in the SW territories (probably a lot were actually SPANISH-Mexican settlers). Most that WERE in the SW territories when the change occurred became AMERICAN, and their descendants are AMERICANS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I don't really believe in that distinction between legal and illegal immigrants anymore. We just invented that concept in order to keep people out we don't want, cherry pick, etc.
And don't you think that's a good thing? Or would you open up the doors to your own home to allow people you don't know to live as they please? If you wouldn't do it yourself, then you are a hypocrite, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Many of the Europeans that came to the Americas were unskilled, uneducated people, exactly the same kind of people we now try to keep out.
Only back THEN, the government didn't provide WIC, foodstamps, welfare and universal education, free healthcare and other TAX payer funded programs to the hordes of uneducated, now did they?
I suspect if we stripped away those benefits, we'd see a lot of "self deportation" and a dramatic decrease in "illegal immigration," along with an equally large acceptance of illegal immigrants from Americans at large.
Romans were barbarians themselves in the eyes of the Celts and Germanic tribes, but we tend to just buy into Roman propaganda scripture...
No, they weren't! I live in a country which was part of the Roman empire and the indigenous population was almost extinct but the Romans weren't seen as barbarians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia Should the Romanians move in the land of their neighbors and say that they do it because their ancestors owned the land? Do you think that such thing is possible in Europe?
Why would he make that distinction? When he referred to the Mexicans that were in California etc. before it was US territory, he would have had to say that the newly arriving European settlers were the illegals
I don't really believe in that distinction between legal and illegal immigrants anymore. We just invented that concept in order to keep people out we don't want, cherry pick, etc. Many of the Europeans that came to the Americas were unskilled, uneducated people, exactly the same kind of people we now try to keep out.
What Europeans were illegals? The first immigrants had permission from the British Empire (who owned the land) to settle in what it is today US.
Why would he make that distinction? When he referred to the Mexicans that were in California etc. before it was US territory, he would have had to say that the newly arriving European settlers were the illegals
I don't really believe in that distinction between legal and illegal immigrants anymore. We just invented that concept in order to keep people out we don't want, cherry pick, etc. Many of the Europeans that came to the Americas were unskilled, uneducated people, exactly the same kind of people we now try to keep out.
It really doesn't matter what you believe. We are a nation of laws. They are breaking the law.
"We just invented that concept in order to keep people out we don't want." Yup, that's the way it works. I decide who comes into my house, not the other way around.
It was "OK" back in the day for EVERYONE to do that. And they did.
TODAY, we say, "gee, it wasn't right for Europeans to do that" (people are usually silent on passing judgment on Non-European acts of aggression and conquest, of course).
So, the question isn't, "Was it deemed as OK way back when"... but.... "Is it Ok NOW?" There are lots of things that were "OK" back in the day that we do not excuse today. It used to be OK for parents to essentially enslave their children and send them to work. What if today children sent their old parents off to work in sweat shop mills? Is your opinion, "Well gee, what goes around comes around, because 200 years ago parents send kids off to work in mills?"
I see it differently. To me it looks like: Now that we have what we wanted, we change the rules so nobody can challenge the status quo that benefits us.
I don't really believe in that distinction between legal and illegal immigrants anymore.
And that poses a big problem for the nation.
Obama and people like yourself think anyone who crosses our southern border illegally has every right to stay here.
I see it differently. To me it looks like: Now that we have what we wanted, we change the rules so nobody can challenge the status quo that benefits us.
And what's wrong with that? I make the rules of my house. I don't care what others think about my policies.
I see it differently. To me it looks like: Now that we have what we wanted, we change the rules so nobody can challenge the status quo that benefits us.
They owned that land... that doesn't mean they are entitled to it today! Do you see how hilarious this thing is?
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.
