Were our ansestors Illegal Aliens?
[I borrowed (without permission) the above comic from drybones.blogspot.com Click on picture and it will bring you to the drybones blog site. There is another Thanksgiving comic there as well.]
Were some of our ancestors Illegal Aliens?
Previous posts of mine related to Illegal Aliens:
Economic Issues and Illegal Immigration
The 2nd Worst Argument used in the Illegal Immigration Discussion
posted by u∃∃l!∃ at Wednesday, November 22, 2006
8 Comments:
Back that far ago, I don't believe any would be labeled as "illegal." Lands were being discovered that had long been inhabited. Ancient Indians didn't practice owning land, but fought for their turf, conquering other tribes.
Suppose Aliens from outer space landed. Because we don't have a concept of owning the ocean does that mean the Aliens can claim it? What about Antarctica? What about rivers, we don’t allow ownership of those (only the land along them). What about our air. We, as a nation, claim airspace and bodies of water (excluding the ocean beyond so many miles).
Many American Indians did have a concept of territorial boundaries (which correlates, in concept, with our national boundaries). They would fight other tribes based on these boundaries.
At one point (a specific tribe somewhere in the SE US) it became against their laws (of the tribe) to sell land to the white man.
I recognize our need (and possibly even our right) to protect our territory. But our fore-fathers did obtain it by theft (sometimes backed up by military battle). I certainly would not propose that we back up time and start returning land. There is no way to know how far to go back since land has been stolen and fought for throughout the entire known history of our species.
And what about the rights of other species and their concept of territory.
Sometimes we have to be somewhat selfish to protect what we have built for ourselves. I am still trying to decide how selfish we need to be.
The American Indian example can be used to justify controlled immigration. It depends on one's point of view.
I have this idea for a comic.
It would have a council of American Indians gathered around a fire, discussing what to do about the European Settlers.
They would ask each other questions like:
Will they adopt our language?
Will they adopt our customs?
Will they treat our resources with the same respect we do?
Will they steal our grandchildren’s future?
Will they bring their diseases?
The caption could read “If there was ever an argument against liberal integration policy”.
I need to work on the idea some.
I don't believe in land ownership anyway. But I live in a country (which I recognize is one of the best on the planet), where land ownership is the preferred way to gain use rights. My other choice is to rent and allow someone else to profit off of the very practice I don't believe in.
I am a capitalist when it comes to value added stuff, I just don't think the model works well for natural resources.
(It is o.k. to get off subject in my blog discussions as I seem incapable of not getting off subject myself).
No, because they didn't expect any special treatment, didn't expect free health care, didn't expect the natives to support them, didn't expect a handout.
If this had been a land of laws - such as it is today - and they simply showed up and expected to be granted the same rights and liberties as those already here without the responsibilities and accountability, then maybe they could be considered illegals. As it stands, they were not and did not.
So you are defining "legal" versus "illegal" based on one's expectations of those whose land they decide to occupy?
Interesting.
Based on your argument, those illegal immigrants who are NOT expecting these hand outs are not "illegal".
My ansestors decided to push the natives off of the land, and eventually kill many of them, instead of expecting the natives to provide them with anything.
On a scale of how "evil" a deed is, I would say this is pretty much worse than expecting hand outs.
I am not in favor of giving handouts to illegal aliens. I am not in favor of the way we currently give hand outs to our own citizens either.
I am in favor of a program to grant legal resident status (not to be confused with citizenship) to those illegal aliens who can support themselves and their families.
Legal and illegal are a matter of definition by the country's laws. Legal immigration was not legislated back then. An immigrant simply had to show up to this country and live. If you got here and survived, you were citizen of the "New World."
By the time the Indians decided that maybe they should do something about the massive influx of crackers, it was too late and they were in a very small minority. They tried to control the population but guns will beat arrows any day.
So the Indians got screwed. But it was their lack of "global awareness" that screwed them.
It was very much the same when the United States actually came into being. Starting off, anyone coming to the US was granted immediate citizenship if only because there were no laws stating otherwise.
It wasn't until 1892 when laws were put into place to stem the flow of people coming into the country. I couldn't find the exact reason why the controls were put into place, but my guess is that the immigrants coming in were starting to create their own little countries, instead of adopting the US as their own. This is where "Little Italy," "Chinatown," and other such 'burbs came into being. The last thing the United States needs to be is a bunch of "mini-countries" without a sense of US national pride, which is what we see with the illegal immigrants.
Now, it's all about enforcing the law. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Some people may not like the law, but they're doing nothing to change it. Instead, they are saying that the United States is an awesome place to live just as long as they don't have to follow any of the rules.
In my very humble opinion, the influx of illegal immigrants - especially into the Southwest - borders on anarchy. With all the tension being built, we may see another "Custer's Last Stand" with the outcome being very, very different.
I'm not advocating such a thing, mind you. I just see a lot of tempers flaring and little being done about it from the government standpoint. Someone in government needs to grow a set of testicles and take a stand. I don't see either side doing it soon. The Left still has a the Mexican majority voting for them and the Right is seeing that majority starting to shift because of W.
red,
Thank you for your comments.
We disagree.
The various Native American Tribes had different approaches. Some welcomed (as in the case of the Pilgrims), so I would not consider the first generation of Pilgrims illegal.
Others made it clear they did not want the settlers on their land, and in some cases just killed them all.
In others the settlers showed the superior power and threatened the Natives.
Multiple scenarios exist throughout the history.
We also occupied land owned by Mexico at some point, illegally, and then made it our own.
We have also granted amnesty in the past.
My guess is that most of us have some traces of illegal alien ancestry.
However, I am wondering just how relevant, the legal status of our ancestors should be to the argument.
If the entire species (or at least most of it) occupies land which at some point their ancestors just took by force (or those who allowed them to settle had taken the land by force at some point), why not continue to just protect what we have for ourselves?
So I am not arguing, that because many of our ancestors were illegal, that we should welcome all illegals.
I only start thinking this way when the anti-let-them-stay crowd tries to use the argument to justify their stance.
This post was part of my attempt to get arguments, which I saw as bogus, which tended to cause me to tune-out of an illegal immigration debate; out of the way; and then proceed to those I thought were relevant.
I didn't make much progress.
But in the end, I think what is best for our country, balanced with as much compassion as we can afford (and still protect our own interests), is what we should be looking for.
I am not, as of yet, certain what that is.
But in the end, I think what is best for our country, balanced with as much compassion as we can afford (and still protect our own interests), is what we should be looking for.
I am not, as of yet, certain what that is.
Start with killing all lawyers and lawmakers. A few days later, utopia will erupt. Really.
red,
Do we need to get rid of the law schools as well? If we just kill all the lawyers won't new ones be generated?
My sister's job is dependent on a need for Lawyers (she works at the Gonzaga University Law Library). So I am not yet for abolishing law schools. (It is that selfish side of me again, my interests over the interests of the majority. Next I will be trying to justify why my own interests are also the best thing for the majority).
Post a Comment
Due to Excessive Spam, I have turned on comment moderation.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home