Objecting to illegal immigration is hypocritical

[Katzndogz]

Hiding behind that sort of arguement shows how pathetic the arguement really is. Fact remains, Native Nations owned this land every bit as much as we own property today because laws say we do. Difference was their law wasn't codified in some book and located at a capitol. And inventing laws out of thin air and using them to say we now own all this land and the natives don't because they don't have our kind of law is the worst kind of arguement. It's claiming our way of doing things is superior to everyone else's. Thus we can roll tanks in to Canada, plant our flag and say this is now our's because we say so. It's like if a child steals property from another child then insists it's their's becase they currently have possession of it. It no more makes any sense than settlers own the land their settlements were built on. Making that claim is to ignore the peoples who already lived there somewhere nearby and up until that moment had no need of fencing it off to denote property.

They owned nothing. For one thing, the Indians believed that land could not be owned by human beings. They had no concept of land ownership. All land belonged to the Great Spirit that let human beings use it. There was no nation, no borders, no indicia of land ownership.

If we were invaded by some foreign force that said they were going to take America, colonize it and plant their flag they can certainly do so and if they have the power they will be successful. It's something that happens to people that lose wars.

 

[martybegan]

Hiding behind that sort of arguement shows how pathetic the arguement really is. Fact remains, Native Nations owned this land every bit as much as we own property today because laws say we do. Difference was their law wasn't codified in some book and located at a capitol. And inventing laws out of thin air and using them to say we now own all this land and the natives don't because they don't have our kind of law is the worst kind of arguement. It's claiming our way of doing things is superior to everyone else's. Thus we can roll tanks in to Canada, plant our flag and say this is now our's because we say so. It's like if a child steals property from another child then insists it's their's becase they currently have possession of it. It no more makes any sense than settlers own the land their settlements were built on. Making that claim is to ignore the peoples who already lived there somewhere nearby and up until that moment had no need of fencing it off to denote property.

Its not hiding behind anything. The native american concept of property and ownership was possession, something that was fought over internally between and even within tribes for centuries before western europeans even arrived. You only possesed the land you were on as long as you were able to properly defend it, much as the rules were under feudal Europe.

The codification of property and the rights of soveriegn nations only came truly about via the Treaty of westphalia, which gave rise to the concept of a westphalian nation state.

 

[Leweman]

Jesus! If all liberals really "think" the way this OP does, its scary. My God how lazy can your thought process get?

 

[GHook93]

If your only recourse is to wave your tiny dick in my face go right ahead. Just showing everyone you have nothing to counter the assertion with but that little embarassment.

First your opening argument was weak. Second your response was a retarded red herring!

 

[GHook93]

Hiding behind that sort of arguement shows how pathetic the arguement really is. Fact remains, Native Nations owned this land every bit as much as we own property today because laws say we do. Difference was their law wasn't codified in some book and located at a capitol. And inventing laws out of thin air and using them to say we now own all this land and the natives don't because they don't have our kind of law is the worst kind of arguement. It's claiming our way of doing things is superior to everyone else's. Thus we can roll tanks in to Canada, plant our flag and say this is now our's because we say so. It's like if a child steals property from another child then insists it's their's becase they currently have possession of it. It no more makes any sense than settlers own the land their settlements were built on. Making that claim is to ignore the peoples who already lived there somewhere nearby and up until that moment had no need of fencing it off to denote property.

So leave the country and give you parent's house (no doubt you live in their basement) to the first Indian (or Mexican if you choose) you see. Then go back to Europe. However, once your in that European country you might have to go to another country and give up your lands and home to the previous people. It could be the Picts, Druids, Visgoth, Franks, Tetonic Knights, Lombardis, Aragons, Papals, Trojans, Huns, Vandales, Saxons, Orthogoths, Eastern Roman Empire, Suevic, etc. All were there before the Europeans.

Also you should make sure you get the correct Indian nation before you give up your parent's home, because many Indian nations fought and conquered other Indian tribes!

 

[RoadVirus]

America was founded by illegal immigrants. But unlike the ones of today, our founding fathers murdered, enslaved, and subjugated the native population. Illegals of today just crossed a line on a map without permission. Whoopy fracking do.

1. There was no immigration laws back then when the first settlers arrived from Europe.
2. "Native Americans" aren't native to this part of the continent.
3. Those "natives" did just as many bad things before European settlers arrived. For instance, they were often at war with other tribes.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Most hypocritical is that the ignorant haters all buy products they could not afford if US wages were paid to the illegals who do the work.

For example, who had bacon for breakfast?

They all know, and cheerfully accept, that their fruits and vegetables were probably produced by illegals but so is their meat.

Do any of them boycott the companies? Nope. In fact, when it was discussed that Smithfield was purchased by China and that they would be hiring more illegals, the usual ignorant big mouths all said they would run right out and buy more pork.

Its not just Smithfield who has a nice quiet agreement with immigration. If you want to know how that agreement works, the information is available to you at TakePart | Stories that Matter, Action that Counts

Click on Food Inc

Oh, all right, I'll give that to you as well -

Factory Farming Facts & the Food Industry - Important Policy News | Food, Inc

Watch the documentary, read the documentation and referencing and then just go right on telling yourself that its okay for you support the companies who hire illegals (and produce the shit you call food).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Jesus! If all liberals really "think" the way this OP does, its scary. My God how lazy can your thought process get?

Not nearly as lazy (and cowardly and hypocritcal) as yours.

Why can't you refute his post?

Because he's right.

 

[daveman]

If your only recourse is to wave your tiny dick in my face go right ahead. Just showing everyone you have nothing to counter the assertion with but that little embarassment.

Your ridiculous assertion has already been countered.

If you disagree, please cite the legal framework written by Native Americans that established means of legal immigration, and describe the specific points violated by Europeans who came here.

Or you can just admit you got nothin'.

 

[Staidhup]

America was founded by illegal immigrants. But unlike the ones of today, our founding fathers murdered, enslaved, and subjugated the native population. Illegals of today just crossed a line on a map without permission. Whoopy fracking do.

So what part of the federal immigration law don't you get? Oh I see it's another case of lets mix apples and oranges in the vain attempt to justify one's preposterous position.

 

[Lumpy 1]

America was founded by illegal immigrants. But unlike the ones of today, our founding fathers murdered, enslaved, and subjugated the native population. Illegals of today just crossed a line on a map without permission. Whoopy fracking do.

Why don't we open all the borders, forget about territorial waters, forget citizenship, abolish rule of law and the Constitution and call this land "Melting Pot"...sheesh

 

[daveman]

Hiding behind that sort of arguement shows how pathetic the arguement really is. Fact remains, Native Nations owned this land every bit as much as we own property today because laws say we do. Difference was their law wasn't codified in some book and located at a capitol. And inventing laws out of thin air and using them to say we now own all this land and the natives don't because they don't have our kind of law is the worst kind of arguement. It's claiming our way of doing things is superior to everyone else's. Thus we can roll tanks in to Canada, plant our flag and say this is now our's because we say so. It's like if a child steals property from another child then insists it's their's becase they currently have possession of it. It no more makes any sense than settlers own the land their settlements were built on. Making that claim is to ignore the peoples who already lived there somewhere nearby and up until that moment had no need of fencing it off to denote property.

Prior to Europeans showing up, the Osage Indians lived in much of Missouri.

Please let us know when you'll be returning your house and property to the Osage Nation.

Here's their contact information:

Osage Nation
627 Grandview
Pawhuska, OK 74056
Phone: 918-287-5555
Toll Free: 1-800-320-8742

We look forward to seeing pictures of you handing your keys to the Native Americans who rightfully owned your land before you benefited from European illegal immigration.

 

[High_Gravity]

America was founded by illegal immigrants. But unlike the ones of today, our founding fathers murdered, enslaved, and subjugated the native population. Illegals of today just crossed a line on a map without permission. Whoopy fracking do.

Weak and stupid argument. When the settlers arrived there wasn't a country. There wasn't an Indian nation. There were nomadic people that regularly went to war with each other. Europeans came and made stakes on their own lands, not occupied or owned by Indians. They regularly traded with the Indian tribes and for a long time it was mutually beneficial. FOR A LONG TIME and regardless of the propaganda, during the Thanksgiving time.

The American nation slowly grew to it's greatness and regardless of the propaganda, it was not on the backs of the Indians.

Europeans were not Illegal aliens, because their was no nation or laws prohibiting it. If the Europeans came in and took over the Indians villages and teepees that would be a different story.


Now come to the present. First, your illogical argument is pure stupidity. Every modern nation needs laws and immigration restrictions. Every modern nation once was owned by others, from Latin America, to Africa to Europe to Asia. Beyong that fact: (1) We can't absorb poor immigrants from around the world. It bankrupts the schools, hospitals, welfare systems, prison systems and other government services. (2) It is the PRIME cause of wage suppression. Minimum wage workers want a raise, fine, then get rid of the surplus of low wage workers flooding into the country. Caesar Chavez knew this and that is why he VIOLENTLY opposed illegal immigration. Heck see South Dakota, few service workers have led to McDonald's starting salaries of $15 a hour! (3) Unlike the 1600s, 1700 and 1800s, the Indian had no borders or unified nation. Nowadays America has a unified nation, laws and borders. They must be respected and protected.

Regardless if you want to make this moral argument or not, the economic argument trumps your bullshit. People stated doom and gloom in AL, but AL is doing fine without the illegals. Illegal immigration is by FAR a net negative. (1) They DESTROY the school systems. You want to know which school not to send your kids to, one with a high level of hispanics. That sounds racist, but it's the truth. (2) They bankrupt hospitals and DRIVE up costs for you (well probably not you, because you are on some gov assistance no doubt) and me. Go to any emergency room you see illegals there all the time that CAN NOT be denied services (thanks to RONALD REAGAN, what do they say about him hating the poor again). They aren't there for emergencies, they treat it as their primary care physician. They have no insurance, but when they do get billed they don't pay a dime and the hospital knows this. They then push the cost to the insured and people who will pay! (4) They bankrupt the welfare system. Yep the majority go right to food stamps and most double dip. They forge docs to get Sec 8. My buddy bought property in the city for rentals and he always gets latinos that no speaka any ingles with Sec 8 approval (call him an ass for taking them, I DO, but he is guarantee 3/4 of the rent by the first of the month). And the vast majority, esp in sanctuary state - CA, find there way onto welfare. (5) They over-represent the ranks in prison. (6) They over-represent DUI accidents. (7) They TAKE jobs Americans will do. 25% work in high paying construction and carpentry. A large chunk work in sales, as electrians, plumbers, waiters and own businesses. Many work in the manufacturing and assembly sector. All these sectors are areas Americans will work and pay living salaries. Only 3% of illegals work in agriculture and only 33% work in the service industry (to which many service industry jobs pay a living wage). For the non-skilled labor, they are the prime reason for wage suppression!

It is IMMORAL and ANTI-AMERICAN to support illegal immigration and there is ZERO justification to support it. So take your liberal elitist attitude and moral authority and shove it up your ass!

 

[High_Gravity]

Hiding behind that sort of arguement shows how pathetic the arguement really is. Fact remains, Native Nations owned this land every bit as much as we own property today because laws say we do. Difference was their law wasn't codified in some book and located at a capitol. And inventing laws out of thin air and using them to say we now own all this land and the natives don't because they don't have our kind of law is the worst kind of arguement. It's claiming our way of doing things is superior to everyone else's. Thus we can roll tanks in to Canada, plant our flag and say this is now our's because we say so. It's like if a child steals property from another child then insists it's their's becase they currently have possession of it. It no more makes any sense than settlers own the land their settlements were built on. Making that claim is to ignore the peoples who already lived there somewhere nearby and up until that moment had no need of fencing it off to denote property.

Prior to Europeans showing up, the Osage Indians lived in much of Missouri.

Please let us know when you'll be returning your house and property to the Osage Nation.

Here's their contact information:

Osage Nation
627 Grandview
Pawhuska, OK 74056
Phone: 918-287-5555
Toll Free: 1-800-320-8742

We look forward to seeing pictures of you handing your keys to the Native Americans who rightfully owned your land before you benefited from European illegal immigration.

I want to see that too.

 

[daveman]

Hiding behind that sort of arguement shows how pathetic the arguement really is. Fact remains, Native Nations owned this land every bit as much as we own property today because laws say we do. Difference was their law wasn't codified in some book and located at a capitol. And inventing laws out of thin air and using them to say we now own all this land and the natives don't because they don't have our kind of law is the worst kind of arguement. It's claiming our way of doing things is superior to everyone else's. Thus we can roll tanks in to Canada, plant our flag and say this is now our's because we say so. It's like if a child steals property from another child then insists it's their's becase they currently have possession of it. It no more makes any sense than settlers own the land their settlements were built on. Making that claim is to ignore the peoples who already lived there somewhere nearby and up until that moment had no need of fencing it off to denote property.

Prior to Europeans showing up, the Osage Indians lived in much of Missouri.

Please let us know when you'll be returning your house and property to the Osage Nation.

Here's their contact information:

Osage Nation
627 Grandview
Pawhuska, OK 74056
Phone: 918-287-5555
Toll Free: 1-800-320-8742

We look forward to seeing pictures of you handing your keys to the Native Americans who rightfully owned your land before you benefited from European illegal immigration.

I want to see that too.

Never going to happen. D4E is just another idiot hypocrite.

 

[High_Gravity]

Prior to Europeans showing up, the Osage Indians lived in much of Missouri.

Please let us know when you'll be returning your house and property to the Osage Nation.

Here's their contact information:

Osage Nation
627 Grandview
Pawhuska, OK 74056
Phone: 918-287-5555
Toll Free: 1-800-320-8742

We look forward to seeing pictures of you handing your keys to the Native Americans who rightfully owned your land before you benefited from European illegal immigration.

I want to see that too.

Never going to happen. D4E is just another idiot hypocrite.

PF Tinhead kept going on on about Jews living on stolen land, I told him if he really believes that he should turn in the keys to his home to the Nearest Indian tribe. He never said a word after that.

 

[chikenwing]

Hiding behind that sort of arguement shows how pathetic the arguement really is. Fact remains, Native Nations owned this land every bit as much as we own property today because laws say we do. Difference was their law wasn't codified in some book and located at a capitol. And inventing laws out of thin air and using them to say we now own all this land and the natives don't because they don't have our kind of law is the worst kind of arguement. It's claiming our way of doing things is superior to everyone else's. Thus we can roll tanks in to Canada, plant our flag and say this is now our's because we say so. It's like if a child steals property from another child then insists it's their's becase they currently have possession of it. It no more makes any sense than settlers own the land their settlements were built on. Making that claim is to ignore the peoples who already lived there somewhere nearby and up until that moment had no need of fencing it off to denote property.

So when are you immigrating away from this horrible thing?

 

[daveman]

I want to see that too.

Never going to happen. D4E is just another idiot hypocrite.

PF Tinhead kept going on on about Jews living on stolen land, I told him if he really believes that he should turn in the keys to his home to the Nearest Indian tribe. He never said a word after that.

Typically, they want OTHER people to conform to their views.

They can't be bothered to un-ass the couch.

 

[MaryL]

I have never killed anyone, threatened anyone or stole their land. But in this Mexican Diaspora, it doesn’t seem to matter. They may or may not be suffering the effects of famines, or pogroms. IF they are or have not, that isn't my fault. Plenty of others have suffered oppression and hard times and still managed to legally immigrate. I HAVE suffered at the hands of Latino Mexican "immigrants", as have others on this board that oppose illegal immigrants. Illegals HAVE threatened or intimidated ME. But then, I read some of the little snarky pro illegal pro-Hispanic apparatchik poster’s petty responses, it makes me feel even more frustrated. They want “facts “ and nitpick about grammar or spelling…But, nitpicking about immigration status, well, that is verboten. Nitpicking about acclimating or basic human respect, we can’t have that now, can WE?

 

[Unkotare]

I read some of the little snarky pro illegal pro-Hispanic apparatchik poster’s

Who's that? The idiot who started this thread? Aside from him, how many people have you seen here who are "pro illegal" immigration? And why do you seem to include "pro-Hispanic" with it? What does that mean? Be as clear and direct as you can find the courage to be.