History is a vast subject and no one can truly know it all. That why historians major in parts of history. Mine is Military History with a focus on Indian warfare. Indeed the Massachusetts Bay Colony fought the natives very early in their history but particularly after they recoverd from the illnesses the colonists brought with them during the first colony which prevented them from wageing as early and effective attacks as they could have, although, they did try from time to time. Nevertheless, they fought early, they fought often, and they are your kin.
I never asserted they didn't; I'm very well aware of the actions Governor Bradford - I call him Grandpa Bill - engaged in toward the native population once they ceased to be useful and became an obstacle to expansion of the colony.
I merely asserted that my ancestors found safe haven here as refugees fleeing religious persecution - of that there is no doubt. They promptly set about persecuting others for religious reasons once happily settled here, there is no denying that truth, either.
My larger point remains that we began as a country of refugees/immigrants, and it's nothing but ignorant xenophobia that compels a bunch of descendants of immigrants to support denying safe haven to refugees fleeing war-torn countries just because of the color of their skin or the religion that they practice.
Of note is the fact that none of the terrorist acts perpetrated in this country were perpetrated by people from the countries your Drumpfuhrer is attempting to ban. It's nonsensical in that regard; that he issues such a ban on Holocaust Remembrance Day when we have cause to consider the Jews we turned away who were later murdered by the Nazis is just indescribably disgusting.
Once again, an uneasy peace at best and attempted genocide at worst. Drop the ideology and look at the facts. They may have been in search of a safe haven but it was not granted to them; they had to carve it out for themselves via blood. This isn't ideology, this is factual history. Realism trumps ideology every time.
When I received my bachelors I was thinking of pursuing something along the realm of constitutional history and wrote a number of papers on constitutional disagreements and contraversies that never seemed to stay within the 25 page limit. In all of my studies I noticed a favoritism toward western immigration, and a very narrow favoritism at that. At first I came to the same concludsion. I thought it to be a racist policy. I quickly found out that they truly favored peoples that assimilated easily into their form of government in keeping with their ideas of liberty in which the law you once practiced was founded.
Throughout history peoples who made their own law founded in their own values have alway been weary of outsiders coming in and imposing opposite values not congruent with the foundations of liberty. This is why the right of return to Israel is denied. If the right of return was granted then Israel would cease to be a democracy.
Immigration policy should favor the citizens of a country in keeping with their safety, values, and laws. Peoples who do not beleive in individual liberty, have a high propensity toward violence, treat their women like garbage, and rape little children, are not in keeping with our ideas of liberty. I've been to these countries, I know these people, and I know how they act. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Cultures have values, values are an indicator of politics, and politics dictate laws and policy. The Somali refugees in Minnesota are a perfect example of what happens when you import a group of people not congruent with the American experiment. That's not ideology, that's fact. Realism trumps ideology everytime.