Lately I have been hearing some debate on talk radio about illegal immigration. One of the points liberals have been making is "we are all illegal immigrants anyways, after all, this used to be the land of the native americans; anyone who is against illegal immigration is thus a hypocrite!"

And I am saddened by how pathetically bad the counterpoints that have been offered to this are. So I have decided to pick up their slack and answer this myself!

There are two main ways to approach the problem:

1. Explain why it is not true that all or even a majority of "americans" are descendants of illegal immigrants.

2. Explain that people are not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. And that there is no hypocrisy involved

I would start with #2 as it is by far the most important point. Lets say for example that I accept that all legal american citizens are descendants from illegal immigrants... This in no way shape or form implies hypocrisy in denouncing illegal immigration. Look far enough back and every single one of us has an ancestor who was a murderer, pedophile, rapist, thief, etc. Some countries, like Australia, were even originally a prison colony where criminals were sent over. Just because an ancestor of your did something doesn't mean it is hypocritical to oppose it... is it hypocrisy for a German to oppose Nazism? NO! likewise, there is no contradiction, hypocrisy, or anything else wrong in opposing illegal-immigration if you yourself are descendant of illegal immigrants... It is only hypocritical if you personally illegally immigrated somewhere.

Now, as for point #1... There are so many things wrong with the assertion that we are all descendants of illegal immigrants I am having problem choosing where to start... so lets start with the 14% of the population who is black. Last I checked, if you are forced into a country as a slave, you are anything but an illegal immigrant... its not like they even wanted to come.

Next is the issue of settlement vs illegal immigration. And conquest vs illegal immigration. The america's were not one unified nation and people, it is a large area that had three major types of locales.

A. Local countries: Some civilizations at the time actually had civilization (civilization = agriculture + cities), those were typically conquered. Mexico was founded by the conquest of the Aztec civilization by the spaniards. Conquest =! illegal immigration (although you could say it is worse)

B. Area settled by nomadic tribes: There were many nomadic tribes, some very large, and some at war with each other. They did not claim land nor were they countries. Individuals coming in to live off of the land that they lived off were not illegal, because they had no laws limiting immigration, as they had no concept of land ownership (you owned horses, tools, etc... not the land... you move from one area to another on the land).

C. Empty areas: The native american people were mostly clean, heck, they even bathed... the europeans have been sharing their homes with their animals, have not bathed, and lived in high population density areas. They were weathering one disease outbreak after another. Diseases like the black death (which depopulated large portions of Europe). When european explorers originally came to the america's they brought diseases with them, diseases which devastated the locals and depopulated whole regions. (and was completely unintentional).

The settlers arrived decades later to find large empty areas of land, unaware that the people living there have all been killed fairly recently from plagues.

D. Purchased land: Some land was actually bought.

These above cover only initial settlements... once that occurred and you had countries in place, those countries had seen their population continue to rise. Much of it via completely LEGAL immigration. There have been waves of immigrants coming into the USA and the other american countries completely legally over the many years since initial European settlement here.

What percent of american's are direct descendants of the puritans who made initial settlements here? very very few. Never heard of the Irish immigrants? the japanese immigrants who were interred during WW2? the Chinese immigrants who helped build railroads? Only few would even claim to directly descend from the original European Colonizers.

But in the end, it all doesn't matter because of point #2. Even if you are a direct descendant of an illegal immigrant, it is perfectly fine for you to oppose it. It is not in any way hypocritical, just as it is not hypocritical for you to oppose crime just because your ancestors committed crimes. It is only hypocrisy if you personally are an illegal immigrant, now opposed to others doing the same thing you personally did.