I don't care. That was then, this is now. I could care less about what happened 200+ years ago. I wonder is the Native Americans who's reservations border Mexico would open them with open arms. :shrug:
Thats not the point. The term illegal immigrants is a joke. Colonialists have merely transformed into exploiters of a different kind, making up laws to justify their oppression. When you've wiped out the culture and peoples on three continents and exploited those on all others, making up laws to further oppress those people who live at subsistence levels is inhumane and unjust.
And this is what I mean by childish. You're either explicitely saying rubbish like this so you can make your inane point or you really are this daft. Which is the case, I don't know and don't care. Your argument — and the comparison it rests on — is completely and utterly silly.
You believe in liberty and equality? Free trade? Open your borders and compete with the world. Don't hide behind laws that protect your disposable lifestyle while enabling war and starvation worldwide. You work below minimum wage like they do and they won't have jobs to come to the US for.
No its not. Illegal means they didn't follow the law. There are lots and lots of legal immigrants who did. Its unfair to all the legal immigrants who took teh time, effort and money to come here. And yes, there are exploiters of illegals. This is why the law is a good thing. It targets the employers who would exploit these illegal immigrants. If they want these good hard working people, they can help them pay for a green card and come here legally. But this law was not made for the reason of oppression. Its like saying the drug laws were made for oppression as well.
Look at the statistics. Most "illegals" used to work and go home before the system made it more difficult for them to return for work. Duh? Who do those laws benefit?
Including you. So when you say you support liberty, equality and free markets, why have subsidies that protect your market while insisting on conditions attached to "aid" that prevent poor countries from protecting theirs?
As usual, you are arguing well beyond the topic. Liberty, equality, free trade and most of the other wonderful-sounding political jargon you would throw into this debate have little to do with the issue, just as your childish comparison to colonists has little to do with the issue. It's an issue of rule of law, cultural primacy and the ability of a people to be able to choose who enters and leaves their country. What this has to do with you, safely on the other side of the world, I don't know. Probably what I have already said: You leap at any chance to demonize the US and spout typical Leftist nonsense. That's your right, of course, but don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously or listen. I'd wager many of us are bored with you and tired of the same-old, same-old. I, for example, would have slotted you on ignore a long time ago, but you're a moderator and I cannot do so. So from time to time, I relieve my frustrations concerning your intellectual depravity with posts like this one.
Why should they? You owe your prosperity to them, through years of exploitation, colonialism and unilaterally designed unfair market practices. Your government made up the rules as they went along too.
Thats exactly what my point on colonialism and Jamestown was about. If you did not follow any rules, why expect others to? Where was your visa? Your green card? Your assimilation with the local culture? Essentially what you are saying is, its okay for you to move to another country, kill everyone in sight and take over, but for anyone who wants to support a family, its illegal to come and work in yours unless they ask you first.
In that case, you should support the legalisation of all the hardworking "illegal" immigrants who are only trying to feed themselves, their family and children. And oppose the multinational corporations who are only turning millionaires into billionaires while imposing unemployment and poverty on the vast majority
Who's saying what the colonists did was right? Why are you attacking positions no one is supporting? Is every American today responsible for the actions of a few European colonists hundreds of years ago?
What rules do you refer to? None of these concepts existed then... No, that's what you're saying, and it's really fucking stupid... Again, your comparison is asinine. OK. Since you insist on pursuing this foolish, I will walk you through it. Slowly... When the settlers arrived at Jamestown, there was no nation with laws and an immigration process that was being violated. None. The tribes of Native Americans were precisely that: Tribes. They were hunters and gatherers who roamed about with little or no notion of physical property. It's also worth noting, to further undermine your stupid argument, that in many cases the land obtained by settlers WAS sold to them by the tribes. Read the book Mayfloweer. It does a great job showing how the tribes sold their land for money or weapons, largely so they could have at it with another tribe. But this is all beside the point. You're attempt to compare colonialization hundreds of years ago to the contemporary problem of immigration is stupid, pure and simple. For starters, the current situation involves two nations with laws and policies that share border. That situation did not exist in Jamestown (obviously). For seconds, you cannot endlessly cherry-pick things from history and try to compare them to modern times. It's nonsensical. As I recently told another member from another thread, at what point in history were things "right"? I mean, we need a correct and original setting if we're going to start comparing things and talking about people nowadays not being where they should be. So do you have a date in mind?
