Posted on 09/03/2007 5:18:38 PM PDT by armymarinedad
The first European settlement in the USA was St. Augustine, 1565, not Jamestown, 1607.
No, its because we started nationalizing people who had no business being American Citizens.
Immigration was always unrestricted into America, but the privilege of citizenship, which came with the right and duty of voting and jury service and civil service positions, was restricted.
Agreed.
“Now if I’m 100% American and you’re more American than I am (by virtue of having had family here longer), then how can you be more than 100% American?”
I haven’t said a word about anyone being more American than anyone else, and I don’t think anyone in the thread has. That’s strictly something that some have inferred based on what some posters said about when their ancestors came here. The discussion has been about the emphasis on different periods in American history.
In the PC world, PC people are more comfortable talking about Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty than about Jamestown and confrontations with American Indians and all that came before the late nineteenth century. So, that’s what we get in the MSM, while the nation’s real history is seldom mentioned. Without the earlier history, the history 270 years later wouldn’t have, couldn’t have happened as it did. Without the earlier US history, what’s now the USA would likely just be an extension of Mexico and the culture that sprung from Spain and the Indians in the Western Hemisphere.
Why would anyone be “miffed” by someone else discussing their family’s history in America. Reread the thread and see when and how any mention of some being more American than others first appeared.
“The first European settlement in the USA was St. Augustine, 1565, not Jamestown, 1607.”
Jamestown survived as an English settlement. St. Augustine did not survive as a Spanish settlement.
Jamestown is generally considered the first permanent English settlement, the culture from which the USA sprung. There’s no shortage of surviving Spanish settlements in the Western Hemisphere if that’s what anyone desires.
Ummm ... the Spanish Cathedral and fort and other buildings are still standing there. Had it not been for Henry Flagler and the Florida East Coast Railroad and the ocean, it would probably be as Spanish a town today as Santa Fe, New Mexico.
By your own definition of the function Ellis Island fulfilled, the people who have come across our southern border illegally would most certainly not have gone through the same process, and would most certainly not be legal.
Wouldn't you agree?
“Ummm ... the Spanish Cathedral and fort and other buildings are still standing there. Had it not been for Henry Flagler and the Florida East Coast Railroad and the ocean, it would probably be as Spanish a town today as Santa Fe, New Mexico.”
Don’t know why you’d want to debate this point. Did you notice the 400th anniversary celebrations at Jamestown, QE II’s visit and other ceremonies this past Spring? It was called America’s 400th anniversary.”
New Orleans has many French buildings, but it’s no longer French, and Alaska’s no longer Russian. Sante Fe is not a Spanish town. There were settlements by various nationalities in what is now the US, but the chain of the governing authority flowed from the English settlements, not from the Spanish or French or Russian settlements. The English settlers and descendants either defeated the others or bought them out.
All the towns are now American because the English became dominant in what is now the USA, and all the towns are subject to the US constitution and government which was established by the English settlers and descendants.
Not even close. Those coming across the southern border almost invariably already have a job and a place to stay lined up. If we had now what we had then (open borders) this would all be very pro forma, as the underground system of recruiting illegal workers would be above ground and transparent. Very few people risk the money involved in the trip from Chiapas without a job and housing already arranged.
And for those who came in without jobs, there would be jobs brokers working the border, like they used to work Ellis Island, lining up entry for other members of their ethnicity.
I think the entire set-up was completely different from what we have now.
When these folks get into the nation, they are being courted by the left. If you don't think that is akin to communism and anarchy, what do you judge it to be?
As for known criminals, the record speeks for itself.
As for disease ridden, tuberculosis is on the rise in the United States for this very reason. As I understand it, that isn't the only medical problem.
Your inference seems to be that these people are not going to be a burden on our society. That couldn't be further from the truth. Displacement of US workers, education, healthcare, crime... are you seriously trying to make that case?
I do not agree with your premise. I appreciate your follow-up response, but I sure can't agree with it.
Well, its the 400th anniversary of English America. But that isn't the anniversary of the first continuously inhabited European settlement in America, or the first settlement of European ancestors of today's American population.
There were settlements by various nationalities in what is now the US, but the chain of the governing authority flowed from the English settlements, not from the Spanish or French or Russian settlements.
On the contrary, the governing law of Lousiana is French in origin (Napoleonic Code), and the charters of the cities and land title in all of these places flow from foreign colonial law grants and rulings, not reestablishment under English law after the granting of statehood.
The accession of these places to US rule does not wipe out their history.
If we had open borders with moderate controls like during the Ellis Island era, undoubtedly 95%+ of the illegals coming across today would be able to come right in. Most of these people are not known criminals or indigents or the like upon entry. You are right that some bad elements are already slipping in the current regime would probably be kept out with formal checks. That would be a benefit of adopting such a policy. However, the majority of illegals are not disease ridden criminals.
As to courting by leftists, this cuts both ways. In the open borders era, Italians and Poles were courted by the Republicans with great success. There isn't a fundemental reason that Hispanic illegals could not be courted by Republicans under a similar scheme today. They are courted successfully by leftists today because they are able to portray Republicans in the media as "meanie racists out to get the poor little Mexicans". This is a Republican image problem though. In a different legal regime, it wouldn't exist.
The main problem with Open Borders today though, is that every immigrant is automatically put on a fast-track towards citizenship and given all sorts of favoritism and benefits, rather than citizenship being a restricted privilege and welfare nonexistant.
Andrew, would you favor a plan that would let fifty million more Mexicans into our nation over the next twenty years? If you would, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement from the get-go.
Assimilation is already a problem with around twenty to thirty million. Imagine what it would be like if that thirty million were eighty.
The United States does have a culture. It’s a culture that has afforded the world a rather decent existance. Do we just turn that culture into the culture of Mexico?
I don’t get what your overall goal is here.
You state that the problem with illegal immigration today is that we fast track them to citizenship, giving them all sorts of services. Andrew, that’s precisely the problem, but it’s not limited to that.
You stated that the democrats couldn’t be assured to obtain their support any more than republicans could. Okay let’s consider that. Do you want to see a bidding war that sees the two political parties promising the Mexican immigrants more goodies than the other? That’s what your logic would lead to, and that’s the most dangerous problem with all this that there is.
It would be a corrupting influence on our political system. Hell, it’s already reached that point. The RP is terrified that it will be tarnished by enforcing our immigration laws.
We’re not the wide open nation we were 100 years ago. We’re not even the wide open nation we were fifty years ago. None the less, you seem to be advocating a relocation program that would see limitless Mexican immigrantion into the United States.
If you don’t approve of that, then some limits will have to be set. And if limits are going to be set, what is wrong with the limits we have already set?
Just for the record, there is around 100 million citizens in Mexico. Some scoff at the idea of fifty million of them coming to the United States. If you consider that five million new births each year isn’t completely out of the rhelm of possibility, you suddenly realize that Mexico could send five million more people across our borders every year, and still not deplete it’s resident population. Baring the natural replacement of Mexican citizen that pass away each year, we could experince a vast flood of people over the next twenty years, and never reach the bottom of the proverbial barrel.
I don’t like where you seem to be headed with this. Don’t take it personal, but I couldn’t disagree with your ideas more.
We need an above board way to allow the apparent millions of illegals to work legally and pay taxes and be controlled by the law, and we also need a far more restricted citizenship program that encourages most of these people to ultimately return back home rather than assuming everyone who jumps ship or swins the Rio Grande wants and deserves citizenship.
Back in the 1800's, something like 30-45% of immigrants in any given year ultimately sailed back across the ocean for Europe.
The United States does have a culture. It’s a culture that has afforded the world a rather decent existance. Do we just turn that culture into the culture of Mexico?
In the current political environment, the US is not going to go back before 1952 and the McCarran Act and restrict citizenship to white European immigrants only. So your desire here is politically unrealistic.
Do you want to see a bidding war that sees the two political parties promising the Mexican immigrants more goodies than the other?
I don't think the Republicans won the Italian and Polish vote in that manner. I know the Democrats did win the Irish that way though.
And if limits are going to be set, what is wrong with the limits we have already set?
Well very clearly they don't work. That's why we have millions of illegals here, people constantly coming across the border, and hundreds of thousands at least who fly into the country from overseas and simply overstay their visa. To accomplish what you want, you need police registration of living arrangements, as in Europe, so that everyone can be tracked and found. And if you know of 10+ million American citizens eager to go work construction labor and pick farm crops, then you know something few other Americans do. The economic dislocation of sending them all packing would be tremendous at this point.
If the current system doesn't work, and is demonstrably inhumane given the hundreds who die crossing the border illegally or who get caught up in human trafficing rings from China and Mexico, decent people should try to think of alternatives that do work.
The thing I would like to see the least is a fast-tracking of illegals to citizenship as in the amnesty proposals. I have no problem with proposals to allow them to work above board and be controlled by the legal system.
Thanks for your honest reply Andrew.
I have not recommended that we limit our immigration to people from Europe. What I have recommended is a moratorium on all immigration for ten to twenty years.
I don’t have a problem with the immigration laws on our books. I do have a problem with not enforcing them.
Once those here either returned to the nation of origion, through strict enforcement of our laws, or had fully assimilated, I’d approve of turning on the spiggot again with normal levels that would be achieved today if we adhered to our laws.
The one caviot I would add, is that we refuse any immigration or visas from terrorist states. If a nation has been proven to harbor, supply or fund terrorists or terrorism, their citizens could not enter the United States period.
I have also called for a program that would see $500,000 paid to families from the Middle-East that would repatriate back home. That amount could be tinkered with. $250,000 might be more appropriate.
I do not want to round up illegals and give them the boot. However, if they did come into contact with the police, other than reporting a crime, they should be sent back to the nation of their origion.
If businesses were prosecuted for hiring illegals, and services were refused to them, they would repatriate themselves. I think that is optimal.
What's there seems pretty harmless. Was the website changed or what?
Not all of the people on the site are celebrities and not all of them will help the cause. Are we any better off because Kristin Cavallari lives here? Is she?
I guess there's a problem with "we" and "our", but it doesn't necessarily mean "all of us." It can mean just a group or part of our population.
Ellis Island, I was told growing up, was for the people who had money. The rest of us got as far as Halifax and had to take a tug down the coast.
Canada has opened an immigration museum in Halifax recently. There website says "Our Story Begins Here." That should make for some controversy as well.
They should take it out.
It may just be something an ad agency came up with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.