Can you make the distinction between "legal" and "illegal"? "Legal" and "moral"? If emigrants from the "Old World" were "authorized by the king" to leave, and there was no political or legal authority in the Americas which declared their immigration into the Americas prohibited, in what sense were those emigrants "illegal immigrants"?
The other part of your garbled point appears to be that it was "immoral" to "waltz in here and divide up the land as we pleased." Is that not what the Indians did? The remains known as "Kennewick Man" appear to have been Caucasian---perhaps inferring that the Indians had displaced earlier settlers. But whether they had displaced earlier settlers or not by their settlement, did the Indians have a superior right to land simply by settling it first?
The Indians didn't have a legal system or property rights (territorial rights maybe) such as the Europeans brought with them, but an awful lot of them let us know we were not welcome with bows and arrows and then rifles and ammunition they traded or confiscated on raids.
You talk of the Indians as if they were a monolithic group or duly constituted nation, notwithstanding the fact that as you acknowledge, they "didn't have a legal system or property rights." In fact, they were disparate and linguistically and culturally diverse tribes of hunter-gatherers and subsistence agriculturists that fought and massacred each other for centuries before the white man came. They didn't occupy the whole land and they certainly weren't making the use of it that European immigrants later did.
We just came and took over the whole Northern and Southern Hempspheres. We had superior force and won. Nevertheless, we "invaded" the New World with shipload after shipload of unwelcome immigrants as far as most of the natives were concerned.
I think you mean "North and South America," not "whole Northern and Southern Hemispheres."
They did help Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers survive the first winter, but relations tended to go downhill shortly after that. Skirmishes led to the Pequot and subsequent wars and injustices against the Indians. Were they right in defending their territory?
Two points. One, don't you think the settlement of North America by Europeans (and Asians and Africans), made the "New World" more "diverse," and isn't that a "good thing"? Two, if you posit that the Indians were right to defend their territory, would you deny that same right to the remote descendants of European (and African and Asian) settlers in North America?
We had the might, did that make it right?
Even if it wasn't "right," what does that have to do with enforcing current immigration laws? Does the fact that you think we "stole" the Western Hemisphere from the Indians make our residence here "illegal" and "immoral," and serve as an absolute impediment to enforcement of our laws and our borders? I think your proposition is too absurd to be entertained.
Sometimes, no. That is why I asked the question.
political or legal authority in the Americas
There was a primitive form of military authority.
The other part of your garbled point appears to be that it was "immoral" to "waltz in here and divide up the land as we pleased."
That's how we ended up being the great nation we are, doing exactly that. I can't decide why that was so right in retrospect, not that I haven't benefitted from their having done so. Sorry if it seemed garbled to you. My strengths seem to lie in math and pattern recognition and not written communication skills. Now that I am getting older, I do tend to garble things more than I did when younger.
Is that not what the Indians did?
Probably, just as our ancestors migrated and conquered native populations in old Europe, as in Norman conquest, etc.
You talk of the Indians as if they were a monolithic group or duly constituted nation, notwithstanding the fact that as you acknowledge, they "didn't have a legal system or property rights." In fact, they were disparate and linguistically and culturally diverse tribes of hunter-gatherers and subsistence agriculturists that fought and massacred each other for centuries before the white man came. They didn't occupy the whole land and they certainly weren't making the use of it that European immigrants later did.
I know all that. They didn't produce smog (well they did have camp fires and smoke signals) either and Pittsburg used to stink for an hour driving through that place. We have had to clean up our act to a great extent. Is that a bad thing?
I think you mean "North and South America," not "whole Northern and Southern Hemispheres."
I did. My bad. Sorry.
Two points. One, don't you think the settlement of North America by Europeans (and Asians and Africans), made the "New World" more "diverse," and isn't that a "good thing"?
Overall at this point in time, it has been positive, but there have been some negative consequences as well. The jury is still out on that and history, if there is any, will revise whatever the actual situation was to fit the agenda of whomever of the time; i.e., winners write history.
Two, if you posit that the Indians were right to defend their territory, would you deny that same right to the remote descendants of European (and African and Asian) settlers in North America?
Certainly not. It's about self-preservation, ethnically and nationally, in which I admittedly contradict myself to some extent because I can't resolve the matter entirely in my own mind knowing much of the history of my early American ancestors, pro and con.
Even if it wasn't "right," what does that have to do with enforcing current immigration laws? Does the fact that you think we "stole" the Western Hemisphere from the Indians make our residence here "illegal" and "immoral," and serve as an absolute impediment to enforcement of our laws and our borders? I think your proposition is too absurd to be entertained.
I'm not the final judge, and maybe there isn't one. We do have laws, and if they are just laws, we have a right to enforce them now. It would make sense to me that laws designed to control immigration are just for both the immigrants and native populations alike. It isn't realistic to suppose that we can take in the whole world, even though the State of Texas would currently hold it (if that "calculation" was correct) as the world population numbers stand now.
It wasn't a proposition, and I don't see it as being that absurd. It was a rhetorical question that I can't answer to myself entirely to my COMPLETE satisfaction at all times in our nation's history because I don't KNOW. I can only try to look at in hindsight from different points of view.
I was discussing it with an Aztec/Hispanic lady the other night. It was mostly a one-sided discussion, as she didn't offer any input because I don't think she has thought it through or maybe was afraid to say anything. She is an alcoholic and was aking me why Indians were so prone to the "firewater" demon (my words not hers). I thought it had something to do with genetic makeup and conditioning. We both agree it involves personal responsibility in overcoming the problem. She is here legally BTW.
There are many other things I could have said pro and con, such as are the Indians today better or worse off because of our presence here and many of them being confined to reservations in North America. Arguments could probably be made both ways. They seem to like some of our technology, and we never succeeded in completely destroying their culture or way of life for those who survived. They are part of the equation of diversity you came back with.