fairly standard question that crops up in immig. debates ie: if you oppose immigration then aren't all US citizens illegals for having kicked out the Indians? How far back in time must we go?
Who did the Indians kick out, since they weren't the first here either? Even the Indians had territories they guarded and kept other tribes out of. Immigration has always been something humans have done, yet they have always needed permission/acceptance to enter into another's space/area/territory/land/country.
Yes, but did the Indians give the British/French permission to take over their lands? And didn't the new whites then kick out the British - so where do we draw the line? There must be some kind of standard, and that is what I'm getting at.
The standard would then be by conquest. The Indians conquered their neighboring tribes to gain more/new territory, the same as European tribes did prior to the creation of countries. The Europeans then came to what is now America and conquered the Indians. Here's a good blog about it. http://johntreed.com/headline/2010/11/24/did-whites-steal-natve-american-land/ Another way is by simple trade. http://www.heritage-history.com/?c=read&author=pumphrey&book=pilgrims&story=troubles
ok, trade or conquest, but that still leaves a fair few loopholes. Let's say one govt. sells off some of their land, who's to say the people will not want it back in the future and then take it legally by force? for example, why can't the French just pile on back into Vietnam because it used to be theirs? and how about the Mexicans claiming some of California back?
Taking it legally by force? You mean by War/Conquest. The French have a Treaty with Vietnam disclosing what they gave up and for what they received in return. As for the Mexicans...again, by Treaty, they have no legal rights to Territory that their Government once gave up.
I'd still like to know what 'Treaty' the Indians signed when they 'voluntarily' handed their lands over to the white man. Any ideas?
At what point in time? At first and during expansion there was conquest and Treaties. I gave you one example of trade already with my link. Why not get straight to the point you want to make vs attempting to show some sort of hypocrisy or bigotry. Your OP talks about immigration, what does Indians have to do with anything in regards to immigration?
The point being - how come all the talk about illegals crossing over from Mexico, when all US citizens are illegals themselves (for having kicked out, conquered, expoloited, bought off etc... the Indians)
What makes you believe that all US Citizens are illegal? What makes you believe the Indians were kicked out?
Because one could say that the US is a country founded upon illegal means. The British were kicked out (as well as the Indians being trashed) by a revolutionary war. Not voted in. Therefore illegal.
The Indians didn't claim the land, so how was it founded on illegal means? War/Conquest/Trade/Treaty/Purchase, whats illegal about that?
Well war and conquest is considered illegal in today's law. Look what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait - but rather the opposite when the US invaded Vietnam. So how does that work out - or do you believe in 'might is right'?
Given that my ancestors immigrated to Greece somewhere between 10th and 11th history i'd say that any family line with less than 500 years in the country are immigrants and should be kicked out .
There's your issue, you are defining the past by today's laws. Kuwait was an ally to the US, Iraq was warned, Iraq was beaten, yet nothing was taken from them other then their pride, no land. Your viewpoints are fallacious and show a complete lack of understanding or comprehension of the past.
so how do you defend the illegal occupation of Iraq and Vietnam then?, because when it was the other way around, all the preachers were having a field day with their moralistic BS and hypocrisy.
Illegal occupation of Iraq? When? Vietnam, when was that illegal? Unless you can show your claims that are but your opinion, which so far, fails in the reality test of what actually was, you may get labeled a troll.
What happened to the Indians provides a useful cautionary tale of what happens when you don't control your borders. Thanks for the reminder.
A lot of them. Why? Do you think whites had the means to drive them out in the 18th century or something?
This reminds me I need to sue Ireland, France, and Germany for driving my ancestors out. I think I'll claim Dublin and Normandy. I'm also part Cherokee, 1/4, so I should go and claim 60 acres of downtown Atlanta as mine and evict everybody or make them pay me rents. Anybody else own some land once claimed by indians? How many of those who do have given theirs back to the tribes while they snivel on the innernetz about this ever popular topic?
