"Were's all immigrants" - a point gleamed from another forum

[Aunt Spiker]

A lot of people have pointed this out, that we're all immigrants and came from other countries, in response to SB1070 and other such things. It's a common point made.

Well, I read a comment elsewhere in which someone said (I'll paraphrase, what he wrote because it was a lot longer than this

"We came to this country illegally, took it over and built it according to our own needs. We then fenced up the natural born citizens who were here before we were and tossed them aside because we didn't give a damn about what they had to say. . .

. . . and so that's what we don't want to have happen with the country that we built after all that happened. That's why we have laws against illegal immigration and should fight to prevent it from happening."

I have never heard that type of rebuttal - thoughts?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

That's what it boils down to. We worked and we fought long and hard to take this land from the people who occupied it before, and we would be fools to allow anyone else to take it away from us without working and fighting just as hard.

 

[VanceMack]

A lot of people have pointed this out, that we're all immigrants and came from other countries, in response to SB1070 and other such things. It's a common point made.

Well, I read a comment elsewhere in which someone said (I'll paraphrase, what he wrote because it was a lot longer than this



I have never heard that type of rebuttal - thoughts?

Its a bull**** comparison. First...how did we come here illegally? Who's laws did we violate?

Second...if we are to be compared with the abopriginal people of the Americas then what makes us any different from them in the sense that our early ancestors were conquerors, fought wars, took slaves, etc?

This ****ing ridiculous Walt Disney koombaya image of injuns (native Americans) is a joke.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Second...if we are to be compared with the abopriginal people of the Americas then what makes us any different from them in the sense that our early ancestors were conquerors, fought wars, took slaves, etc?

That's the point of the argument. We aren't any different than the people we conquered and whose land we live on today, and the people who are trying to take that land back aren't any different than we were. The people who lived here before us had the right to defend their land; they tried and they failed. We, too, have the right to defend our land-- and the argument carries the warning that if we do not even try, we will inevitably fail like those who came before us.

Land belongs to those who are strong enough to take it and hold it.

 

[jamesrage]

A lot of people have pointed this out, that we're all immigrants and came from other countries, in response to SB1070 and other such things. It's a common point made.

Well, I read a comment elsewhere in which someone said (I'll paraphrase, what he wrote because it was a lot longer than this



I have never heard that type of rebuttal - thoughts?

At some point every group of people were immigrants even the native Americans at some point immigrated here. So the "Were all immigrants" is nothing more than BS line from pro-illegals to justify sneaking/trespassing/invading a country. The key words here is "were" which most people in regard that word as past tense. In other words I am not a immigrant, just my ancestors that came here are the immigrants(regardless if they are my European ancestors or my native American ancestors) and they have dead for a long time.

 

[Orion]

That's the point of the argument. We aren't any different than the people we conquered and whose land we live on today, and the people who are trying to take that land back aren't any different than we were.

It's kind of hard to make that argument when the people we took the land from had no concept of ownership over nature, or the official documentation that accompanies property in our culture. It's why it was so easy to get them to sign the paper work in some cases... because to them it had no meaning. To us, it meant everything.

I'm not really commenting on the OP because it's a bit askew for my taste, but I noticed your point and wanted to flesh it out a bit.

 

[VanceMack]

That's the point of the argument. We aren't any different than the people we conquered and whose land we live on today, and the people who are trying to take that land back aren't any different than we were. The people who lived here before us had the right to defend their land; they tried and they failed. We, too, have the right to defend our land-- and the argument carries the warning that if we do not even try, we will inevitably fail like those who came before us.

Land belongs to those who are strong enough to take it and hold it.

My point would be that those that claim it is 'the same' are wrong...we didnt violate laws. there were instances of conquest but for the most part...there simply wasnt land 'ownership' or country with rules and laws. Times have changed RADICALLY.

I think we agree completely on the conquest part...EVERY nation and people have some history of conquest and oppression.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

My point would be that those that claim it is 'the same' are wrong...we didnt violate laws.

We didn't violate our laws. Every society has laws, and theirs merely had different policies as concerned land ownership. In the end, we still took the land by force, like we were always going to; the treaties were irrelevant, whether we intended to keep them or not.