What should be done about illegal immigration?

High Seas wrote:

roger wrote:
Excellent point about those Native Americans, JLN. Their population is down, ,,,.

Roger - this info is erroneous. There are many more American Indians (that's what the Bureau of Indian Affairs calls them, "native" is no longer politically correct) alive today than on the day the Mayflower docked.
http://www.doi.gov/bia/labor.html

We used to say "Indians". It became "Native Americans". Now, you tell me it's "American Indians". Wouldn't surprise me a bit to come back next week and find we are back to "Indians". All I'm certain of is that the Navajo call themselves Dine. One Navajo I worked with wore a tee shirt that said "I'm sure glad Columbus wasn't looking for Turkey (instead of India).

In any case, the point of my post concerned neither nomenclature, nor precolumbian populations, actually.

0 Replies

HS wrote :

Quote:

Roger - this info is erroneous. There are many more American Indians (that's what the Bureau of Indian Affairs calls them, "native" is no longer politically correct) alive today than on the day the Mayflower docked.

might one also want to take into consideration the ratio of "american indians" vs. "all the others" ?
how much of their lands and resources do they still own and control ?

of course , it's all "water under the bridge" now . many other peoples can no doubt claim that various immigrants have pushed them out or dimished their status/influence .

just reading "indian summer - the secret history of the end of an empire" .
it's interesting to note that india after a long occupation by mongols and later by the british has become its own master again .
the difference seems to be that india was really never "colonized" - didn't have many immigrants coming to their country .
strangely enough , they adopted many british customs yet somehow were able to modify them to their own liking .
the book claims that in certain respects - such as the civil service - india is now "more british" than britain is today .
hbg

0 Replies

Could we get away from the discussion of American Indians? After all, it is ancient history.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Could we get away from the discussion of American Indians? After all, it is ancient history.

0 Replies

ancient romans , ancient indians - aren't they all much the same ? :wink:
hbg

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Could we get away from the discussion of American Indians? After all, it is ancient history.

They said the same things about American Indians that you are saying about illegal people.

They were criticized for not assimilating and learning English.
They were accused of degrading "American" culture.
They were accused of violent crime and where called a threat for sexual predation.
They were said to not value education.

The themes here are all the same.

0 Replies

I had an argument with a lady from Indiana on this tour, because she says there is no such thing as "illegal immigration." She says if they are here illegally, they are not immigrants. I told her many countries around the world has illegal immigration - including the US. I told her I disagreed with her on this terminology; we have "illegal immigration" in the US.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Could we get away from the discussion of American Indians? After all, it is ancient history.

They said the same things about American Indians that you are saying about illegal people.

They were criticized for not assimilating and learning English.
They were accused of degrading "American" culture.
They were accused of violent crime and where called a threat for sexual predation.
They were said to not value education.

The themes here are all the same.

Where do you nutballs get off trying to compare the current Illegal Immigration situation to the outright murder, and theft of land and culture that happened to the Native American Indians?

My history tells me the it was the WESTERN EUROPEANS who were the illegal immigrants. They killed thousands, stole land, refused to adapt to our culture. Many Natives fought next to the "immigrants" and with Andrew Jackson during the War and then he decided to move of off our land. So much for trying to help you guys out!

0 Replies

woiyo, Excellent point! We sometimes get carried away with who we think are immigrants.

0 Replies

Right woiyo. I think you get it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I had an argument with a lady from Indiana on this tour, because she says there is no such thing as "illegal immigration." She says if they are here illegally, they are not immigrants. I told her many countries around the world has illegal immigration - including the US. I told her I disagreed with her on this terminology; we have "illegal immigration" in the US.

And she wins the argument. They are "illegal aliens", not immigrants. They are here illegally and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

And she wins the argument. They are "illegal aliens", not immigrants. They are here illegally and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Certainly the term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States - as a definined by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

However, people who want to stay/live in the USA and are not tourits/visitors (alliens) are commonly called immigrants.

See e.g. the defintions/terms in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsiblity Act.

(According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security the name of this act hasn't changed to "Illegal Alien Reform and Alien Responsibilty Act". But they may be wrong.)

0 Replies

Walter, the government is clearly not on the side of the majority of its citizens on this issue. The misnamed act clearly reflects that. Thanks for pointing it out.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Walter, the government is clearly not on the side of the majority of its citizens on this issue. The misnamed act clearly reflects that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well, but those citizens could live for 11 years with - even the U.S. Supreme Court didn't notice what you now suddenly found out.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Walter, the government is clearly not on the side of the majority of its citizens on this issue. The misnamed act clearly reflects that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well, but those citizens could live for 11 years with - even the U.S. Supreme Court didn't notice what you now suddenly found out.

The USSC is not bound by the will of the people. The government is.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

The USSC is not bound by the will of the people. The government is.

Well, I would certainly prefer to live in a country with a constitution and a constituional court - but if you prefer such done by plebiscite, your choice.

0 Replies

Quote:

the government is clearly not on the side of the majority of its citizens on this issue. The misnamed act clearly reflects that

governments are not and SHOULD NOT always be just listening to the majority and adjust their policies accordingly .
from what i undertsand about GOVERNING , it does not mean being in a popularity contest .
certain practices or political ideas may sometimes start with small individual groups . governments may pick up the idea and introduce them despite widespread opposition .

if EVERY american would be voting on a referendum on gun control , i wonder what the outcome might be .
would the gun lobby be willing to accept an outcome that would further restrict gun control ??? i have my doubts .
hbg

from THE FREE DICTIONARY

Quote:

gov·ern (gvrn)
v. gov·erned, gov·ern·ing, gov·erns
v.tr.
1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.
2. To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake.
3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people.
4. To keep under control; restrain: a student who could not govern his impulses.
5. To exercise a deciding or determining influence on: Chance usually governs the outcome of the game.
6. Grammar To require (a specific morphological form) of accompanying words.
v.intr.
1. To exercise political authority.
2. To have or exercise a determining influence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English governen, from Old French governer, from Latin gubernre, from Greek kubernn.]

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

The USSC is not bound by the will of the people. The government is.

Well, I would certainly prefer to live in a country with a constitution and a constituional court - but if you prefer such done by plebiscite, your choice.

I would tend to disagree.

Our founding fathers recognized the original constitution might have to be amended in an effort to "change with the times".

A Constitution that is so rigid that can never be changed seems to lend itself to a dictatorial type of govt.

0 Replies

I didn't want to give the impression that I think, a constitution shouldn't be changed.

Actually, I prefer a constituion which "following" the actual life.

Might well be that my problems here arose because I grew up and live all my life in a federal parliamentary republic.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know