There are others who undoubtedly want to rid the country of, as they see it, those who have arrived illegally, without considering the fact that the vast majority of Americans are descended from those who arrived illegally, because that’s how the American population was originally built on the basis of those who came to its shores seeking a new home.
No doubt Spud has access to chapter and verse of US immigration law. What forms – sources – of migration were illegal and when. No doubt, eh?
America wasn’t founded by immigrants, it was founded by conquerors.
It’s an inversion of normal values to denounce your ancestors because they used violence to give you a future.
By this argument Native Americans have no reason to resent the fairly recent takeover by Europeans then. They’ve only been there 15000 years or so (not forever as they claim). The Mayflower was just another group “who came to its shores looking for a new home”. At least that’s one problem solved, so called First Nations have no more claim to the continent than anyone else.
A question I’d like an answer to: at what point did American immigration law switch from a situation where it was legal unless there was an explicit law saying otherwise to the modern position where it is illegal unless there is an explicit law saying otherwise? I believe it’s the 1924 Immigration Act, but I’m nowhere near expert enough to say for sure. It’s certainly somewhere in the early part of the twentieth century. The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882, usually given as the first restriction on immigration) just made it illegal for Chinese people to immigrate without permission; everyone else was still allowed in by default.
This argument, when made by people more intelligent than Spud and therefore better at hiding the ball, is that the vast majority of those immigrating to America did not have specific legal permission to do so. And that illegal immigrants today also do not have specific legal permission to do so.
This is what “undocumented” is trying to achieve – it’s saying that Irish people arriving at Ellis Island didn’t have documents from US immigration and neither do Mexicans walking through the Arizona desert. The difference being, of course, that in the 1880s, there wasn’t a legal requirement to have those documents and in the 1980s there was. Saying “illegal” picks up on this distinction; saying “undocumented” hides it.
(Aside: the Chinese Exclusion Act was not the first restriction on immigration, but those prior to that were more in the nature of “persona non grata” rules, ie the government could exclude specific people they didn’t want, rather than general laws saying that some group of people needed a permission slip)
Ltw
I reverse this argument and say that since we whites are the evil invaders that displaced the lovely First Nations, all the immigrants coming after us are even worse. And we have a perfect right to chuck them out.
“as they see it, those who have arrived illegally,”
Perhaps someone ought to explain the definitions of ‘Legal’ and ‘Illegal’ to Spud…….
There is a legal route to enter the USA and a legal route to enter the UK and anyone who enters either country outside of those legal routes is illegal however much the left play word games to support their belief.
In any case, whatever the law was back in 1800 is irrelevant to what the law is today.
the vast majority of Americans are descended from those who arrived illegally
What is legal or illegal is not set in stone and can be flipped as and when desired by those in power. Subject to the legal profession getting their cut by arguing both sides of the legislation.
I don’t disagree Boganboy, and yes there are parallels to Oz. I’m just pointing out that Spud’s claim means that no one has sovereignty. Will you tell Lidia Thorpe or shall I? 🙂
Should be called “The Conquerors Song”
Ah! Ah!
We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow
The hammer of the gods
Will drive our ships to new lands
To fight the horde, sing and cry
Valhalla, I am coming
On we sweep with threshing oar
Our only goal will be the western shore
My favourite example of tribal land being stolen by whitey is the Black Hills of Dakota which were originally inhabited by Asians moving into the US 15-20,000 years ago.
The land was then taken from them by the Clovis who also wiped them out.
A second wave of Asians then got revenge and wiped out the Clovis.
Who were then beaten, and presumably wiped out, by the Ankara.
Who got beaten and dispossessed by the Crow.
Who suffered the same fate at the hands of the Pawnee.
Who fared badly when the Kiowa showed up.
Then along came the Cheyenne (guess what happened to the Kiowa?)
And most recently the Lakota Sioux defeated the Cheyenne and proclaimed it their “Historical sacred land”
Which didn’t do them much good……….
The fact that “Native American” organisations have a power of veto – always used – over DNA analysis of ancient bones tells you all you need to know. Their claims to perpetual residence at particular sites are fake.
Mind you, the Americans are also fake when they insist on ignoring the genocide involved. And the broken treaties. And the ethnic cleansing. It’s about par for human history but it’s absurd hypocrisy to deny what happened. Hell, it would be like a notorious slave-owner and slave-shagger – say Tom Jefferson – posing as a beacon of liberty.
As Dr Johnson noticed: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?”
Ltw
I’d definitely rather NOT have anything to do with Lydia Thorpe, thanks!!
The post of Spud’s suggests the ‘shock’ which he displayed yesterday has been overcome by his polymath – like intellect. Even though in reality he shouldn’t even be in place at a Polytechnic.
Dearieme
My favourite verse of the Full US national anthem is the third verse as it describes so accurately the fate of Negro slaves and Hessian Mercenaries captured by Revolutionary forces:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave
There’s a reason its not sung much these days….
DM – Mind you, the Americans are also fake when they insist on ignoring the genocide involved
I agree. They should build a huge golden statue of General Custer, like the Mongos did for Genghis Khan.
Mind you, if I did a genocide it would actually stick. What’s the point of genocide when there’s still millions of them around to bitch at you?
Thanks VP: I hadn’t known. My favourite passage in the Declaration of Independence is this charge against King George:
“For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies”
I take it that that is racist, creedist attack on the French Canadians.
Mind you I think the DofI is poor stuff: in contrast the Constitution is tip-top. Though it is noticeable in the history of the US that the Constitution is ignored whenever the pressure is on. That that is possible must suggest a flaw in the Constitution. Being man-made that is inevitable.
I have copies of the immigration paperwork for some of my ancestors when they came to America in the 1890s from Germany. It consists of an index card documenting their name, age, country of origin, destination, vessel and date of arrival. That was the process in those days.
Of some of my earlier ancestors had some trouble with the immigration process. Another ancestor had his farm burned and wife kidnapped by the Native immigration authorities. His journal detailed the gathering of a posse of armed men to retrieve said wife.
…the vast majority of Americans are descended from those who arrived illegally, because that’s how the American population was originally built on the basis of those who came to its shores seeking a new home
Wrong, as usual.
US Naturalisation Act 1790:
The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to “free white person(s) … of good character”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
Still the best refutation of the claims of American Indians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1y_0NfhF9c
@Addolff
“Perhaps someone ought to explain the definitions of ‘Legal’ and ‘Illegal’ to Spud…….”</em"
Or indeed, to our Government.
Lesson 1: Bribery.
Lesson 2: Affray, GBH and other street assaults for the working MP.
Spud doesn’t seem to understand what ‘law’ is.
When the colonists came over (from Spain, UK, France, etc) *there wasn’t a law in place* by the existing governments of North America making anything they did illegal.
So, no, my ancestors didn’t arrive illegally, even by the standards of the people that had already colonized the place before Europeans showed up.
Also, I would point out that unlimited European immigration (whether you consider it legal or illegal) was PRETTY DARN BAD for the Americans living their at that time.
It destroyed their culture and got most of them killed off.
I’m not sure even Murphy is going to accept being put up against the wall in exchange for a brighter future for Bangladeshi and Syrian immigrant’s children.
@Dearieme,
“As Dr Johnson noticed: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?””
Who were themselves generally Negroes who went with the then current Program…..
Which, naturally, isn’t a thing that’s welcome to be pointed out to the Bon Pensants….
@Grikath: Dr Johnson was referring to whites in the thirteen colonies. After all, the black slavers in Africa did not yelp for liberty.
It’s probably a common phenomenon. Some Ancient Greeks claimed to be keen on liberty but happily kept slaves. Viking settlers in Britain set up local assemblies to defend their liberty – and they too were keen on keeping and trading slaves.
The Anglo-Saxons kept slaves but the Normans abolished slavery. Yet nobody ever accused the Normans of being especially keen on liberty.
@Steve… ok… That’s the soundtrack for the evening set. I, II, III, IV etc. it is…
@Dearieme All those people had *very* different notions about slavery, most of all the *why* ..
Conflating Norse concepts of Thralldom with Greek concepts of slavery is …disingenious.. to say the least.
There were Rules. Differing ones, but nonetheless.
And in all the cultures you mentioned…. Slaves Were Not Cheap. Nor were they without, very well defined, rights.
And yes, you could ignore those…. Wouldn’t work out in the long run…
Norse Wisdom: “A Karl treateth his thralls like his betrothed. Forsake either, and thine House shall fall to Ruin. They shall earn thine Respect, and thou shallt repay them in kind. ” ( Icelandic Edda )
There’s a ton of variants of that. Pliny the Elder, and the Younger** comes to mind immediately, but there are a veritable shitton of others: “Abuse your slaves, Get Rekt.”
** and those two couldn’t agree on which side your bread should be buttered….
@ Grikath
Quite. In different cultures slaves had different rights, different duties and different expectations. e.g. ” … Eleazer of Damascus, a slave born in my house, shall be my heir”
Just a thought, but isn’t slavery/indentured labour/serfdom whatever inevitable in a low money economy? You need some way of binding labour to its tasks or nothing would ever get done. And you don’t really get a money economy until you divorce money from difficult to obtain tokens of value