Posted on 12/21/2015 6:04:59 AM PST by HomerBohn
“English, Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Greek, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese all immigrated here in large numbers from 1620 through the 1930s.”
Chinese, Japanese, Italians from 1620s, you are insane.
The Puritans did not like Christmas; said it was too much Popery.
“And, by the way, your repeated assertion,â€we are a nation of immigrants†is not proof that we are a nation of immigrants.”
Exactly!
I was reminded of a particularly good article by Lawrence Auster , ‘Are We Really a Nation of Immigrants? ‘ from FrontPageMagazine.com in 2006. Keep in mind this fact.
“Fifty-six men from each of the original 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Nine of the signers were immigrants, two were brothers and two were cousins. One was an orphan.”
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ArtId=4976
You idiot
What the hell do you all have against immigrants? Everyone you just mentioned was here because someone immigrated to America.
I had one come over on a ship in 1640.
“from 1620 through the 1930s.”
You idiot
Yes, that is what you posted, you idiot. You can’t read your own posts?
Maybe I'm missing some intended humor.
Are you claiming they executed people for non-capital crimes?
I only had time to skim the article, seems good.
So the Chinese didn’t immigrate to America during that period? No Japanese either?
Howd they get here? When did they get here? Maybe you think it was aliens.
“Are you claiming they executed people for non-capital crimes?”
No, but are you claiming to be serious?
Massachusetts executed people in that time period.
The Chinese were brought in to build the transcontinental railroads mid-19th century.
from Wikipedia:
1885: On February 8, the first official intake of Japanese migrants to a U.S.-controlled entity occurs when 676 men, 159 women, and 108 children arrive in Honolulu on board the Pacific Mail passenger freighter City of Tokio. These immigrants, the first of many Japanese immigrants to Hawaii, have come to work as laborers on the island’s sugar plantations via an assisted passage scheme organized by the Hawaiian government.
That doesn't necessarily support the idea of a distinction between "citizens" and "natural born citizens" -- just the idea of a distinction between born citizens and naturalized citizens.
Also, what's with the "free white" thing?
If American citizenship is an inheritance conveyed to a child at birth, then how would you define a "pure" American?
Rather meaningless term for me. Americans are mutts, not pure breeds.
Which is during the timeframe I mentioned. Right?
As such, you would be correct in saying the American identity, nationalism, symbols and history, good and bad, are personal for me. It's all I can honestly claim, legally or otherwise.
No matter where they came from or what ethnicity my people had, they all legally became Americans who then gave birth to Americans here in America.
You can only give what you have and, with regards to citizenship, all they had to pass on the their heirs was American.
That's how I define a pure American.
With chemistry, if you mix three things together and still have the same thing, then it's pure.
In the chemistry of citizenship our FFs had studied, I believe that legal purity was referred to as "natural born" citizenship.
A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth of one country and nothing else. So, while all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born.
I don't believe the Founding Father's referred to themselves as mutts, but believed they had started a pure breed.
Works for me. You know, "E pluribus unum"...or something like that.
A badly written article, and a stupid one.
Rubio isn’t my choice, and he’s a 14th Amendment baby, but by the laws as we currently observe them, he’s eligible to run. Bark up a different tree.
For me, I’m an American.
Other labels defining what type of American just try to diminish “American”.
Cheers.
You can see it with Texans or for those from NYC or Jersey, for example, or with those in many parts of what was called "The South" once upon a time.
I've spent a lot around the hard core Irish and it's the same sort of thing with them, too, and not just on St. Patty's day.
Therefore, I can't deny the emotional truth of divided allegiance or loyalty, either.
The reality of that truth and of those emotions can even motivate a careful or fearful people to overrule legality, which explains the "unexplainable" such as during WWII when both Japanese and German Americans were moved to internment camps.
I wonder if those emotional truths were even more important and compelling for those first Americans, given their fledgling status as compared to the much stronger powers around them?
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.