Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.

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.

on Sep 29, 2010


on Sep 29, 2010

Another point you missed.  Anchor babies are not illegal immigrants, and never have been.  Some want to make them illegal, but no law can be passed that is retroactive.  So the ones here will always be legal citizens.

Which makes every person born in the US, who may have illegal ancestors, legal citizens.  And the purveyors of the stupidity (the liberals)  just a different version of an idiot.

on Sep 29, 2010

And where did the "native" Americans come from? Everything I've read to date indicates the Western Hemisphere had no indigenous people spring from the land.

Colonists/settlers/conquers had no interest in hiding inside the native culture or adopting it. I'm sure if that was the intent, those early people would have adopted their hosts laws and found a way to live among them in harmony. The newcomers weren't interested in assimilating into the native culture and neither are the people flooding the borders today. They are here to exploit what they can, otherwise they would subject themselves to the immigration process.

on Nov 10, 2010

@Dr Guy, thanks for that excellent point, it hadn't occurred to me.

The one problem I can see with it is that we are applying our current laws to what happened then, when discussing legality, which unlike morality is very malleable.

When those people emigrated to the america's there were no local countries with anchor baby laws. I am not sure if the origin countries for the immigrants (aka, UK, spain, etc) had anchor baby laws at the time, but even if they did it wouldn't matter; just as we can't apply mexico's immigration laws to Mexican immigrants coming into the USA, we instead apply local laws to them.

And speaking of local laws, I myself pointed out how nomadic tribes did not have any laws forbidding immigration, lacking such laws they also lacked anchor baby laws. And local civilziations (non nomadic city dwellers with farms) were conquered outright rather then suffering illegal immigration (which is a very different issue, potentially worse, but a completely different issue)

@Nitro Cruiser: Obviously the people came from somewhere, but the argument is that they are "the original settlers of otherwise an empty land"... this is of-course horribly bigoted, as it reduces myriad cultures and peoples into one single group. The so called "Native Americans" were a plethora of cultures, languages, religion, etc... And as all people, have been conquering each other for generations. But while its perfectly fine for one group of "native americans" to conquer another, and perfectly fine for Caucasians to conquer each other, the moment caucasians conquer "native americans" it becomes bad because their skin color is different... That is a very racist view.

» 181
» 4
Sponsored Links