You know what's really ironic about illegal American Immigration?
- Thread starter el canadiano
- Start date
-
- Tags
- american illegal immigration ironic
I agree with you. But I sense a change in this. People are beginning to ask real questions about the economy, and the usual paternalistic type of answers and communiques from the Government do not seem to be sufficient any longer. People are asking for greater transparency.
tell me your being facetious
States have borders for a reason. Laws exist. You may choose to disregard tham but you do so at your peril.
Try defending yourself in a court6 with that nonsense and see how far it gets you.
Anyway, we are a nation of immigrants. Obviously we need to revamp our policy with our neighbors to the south but that doesn't mean condoning illegal immigration.
Hiring illegal aliens artificially depresses the value of labor in markets where it is more common. Business owners knowingly or even casually disregarding their duty to not hire illegals should be fined. Go after them not the illegals. If the illegals can't find work they'll stop coming. Besides, there are a lot fewer employers to target than employees.
Given that America was founded on genocidal policies. I disagree that it was totally founded on genocide, but genocide was clearly part of the political policy of the founders. Given that the predominately European founders were invaders.
How then does that affect the legality of America?s laws? Civilization is established by the sword. Membership is not voluntary. Law is a tool to maintain civilization. Its authority derives from force. What does the nature of the creation of America have to do with the legitimacy of it?s laws. Most, if not all civilized states, were at one time or another, the result of conquest. This is the nature of civilization.
Actually, while America?s immigration policies were in the past racist, the present ones are not particularly racist. If you disagree, perhaps you could point out where they are?
Since at the moment, illegal immigration is part of America?s de facto policy, and the chief beneficiaries of this policy, other than the American oligarchs, are the illegal immigrants who would not other wise be able to enter a First World Country, this policy would seem to benefit a publicly disfavored ethnicity.
Facistly is a made up word, at least it?s not in the Merriam-Webster?s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0.
However, I assume it means by fascist means. Perhaps you could explain the fascist mechanism in place. The American oligarchy does not operate on fascist principals, at least as far as I am able to discern. It might be an improvement if it did. After all, fascists are organized. The American oligarchy works by a collusion of interests which is mostly disorganized, at least it seems so to me.
The term founders is a collective designation. I don?t care to break down the founders into their individual positions. Not all of the founders favored genocide, actually probably none would have admitted it. Unfortunately, genocide was the result of their collective actions. As for the policies, they were dedicated to the removal of the Amerindians from their land and the extermination of those which resisted. I could break it down to a series of events, which at this point in time would require me to duplicate the studies of decades past. This seems rather unnecessary. It was either policy or it was chance, and the Cherokees, for one, will assure you that it wasn?t chance. After all, they won their case before the US Supreme Court.
Before you ask which tribes were exterminated, consult the definition of genocide in a good dictionary.
I am aware of the term. However, it is made of individuals whose names are well know, whose politics are well known, etc.
But surely if you are to make the allegation you must be able to identify those who did favor genocide (even if they wouldn't admit it) and can point to the policies that they put in place to further that goal.
Yes, the Cherokee won. Yes, Jackson didn't enforce the decision in the favor of the Cherokee nation. The reason had nothing to do with genocide. Jackson did not have the man power to enforce the decision. That was the genesis of the quote... his inability to enforce, not contempt for Marshall, the Court as a whole or of native Americans. Hell, Jackson had an adopted son who was Creek (Lyncoya)
Removal was simply the way the world worked then and to a large extent works even today. That certainly doesn't make it right. But removal is not genocide. Also, the fact remains that many natives did wage war againsty the US. It was futile and who can blame them for defending ther land. But this is, again, the way of things; war, but not genocide.
Reservations... the BIA is perhaps the most shamely organ of our government. However, it is not an instrument of genocide either.
Lastly, the largest decline in native populations occurred before there was a United States.
Last edited:
I wish I knew how to make multiple quotes but so far I haven?t figured it out. It damn sure isn?t intuitive.
Yes, if I want to play your game, I can. If I say that the Confederate States of America was racist, you can ask me to list the members who were racist. You can ask me, but I damn sure am not going to list them. The statement that because you can determine the bias of a group, you can identify the bias of its individual members may seem logical to you, but it isn?t to me. Actually, the action of a group may not reflect the beliefs of any of it?s members. Because someone believes that a specified action will produce a specified result, doesn?t make it so. The previous American administration should have made that quite clear.
I suppose that Hitler?s quest of lebensraum had nothing to do with genocide either but the Slavs may have a differing opinion. What is the great difference between lebensraum and manifest destiny. Both felt that an inferior people should make way for a superior people. Actually Hitler expressed his admiration for the American solution to the problem of Native Populations in Mein Kampf. With the Americans, it was the Amerindians, with Hitler it was the Slavs.
I don?t know Jackson?s motive for adopting Lyncoya and I won?t repeat rumors. However, I doubt if Jackson had a desire to exterminate the Amerindians. He wanted their land, and he was willing to kill them to get it. He obviously didn?t consider the Amerindians as American citizens or on a par with Whites.
Genocide is genocide, the motive isn?t the deciding factor, the action is. Compare the Trail of Tears with the Bataan Death March. In the first, you had women and children, in the second, you had soldiers. Compare the casualties. Yet the Bataan Death March was a war crime. Losing is the only real crime in war.
Yes, the diseases that the Europeans brought with them to the New World was probably their greatest weapon. However, they can?t be blamed for that. For what they did to the survivors is another matter.
no it isn't.
Just block off quotes and start the being of the quote with brackets surrounding the word quote (or copy the post writers little quote= 1 1 1 to head block) and end it with backslash quote in brackts.
Lyncoya: Perhaps he thought adopting him was the morally correct thing to do. Speculation on motive will yield little here but the fact that he did it has to account for something.
Kinda sounded like a verbose way to avoid the question.
The framers did not embark upon some unwritten or acknowledged pact to conduct a policy of genocide.
While some policies were obviously shameful (extremely so as I noted above) genocide takes on a vulgar and contemptable tone and treatment of native nations and elevates it to something it was not.
Crime.... requires two elements... Actus Reus and Mens Reus; act and intent. One must intend the result for the act to be a crime and the result must be suffiently bad to warrant state intrusion. Murder fits.
Last edited:
Thank you, I figured out a way to do it before I opened this post. My main block was that I kept looking for a sensible way to do it. This editor is without question the hardest to use I have encountered.
True, but the courts may include the good deeds of a murderer in the sentencing phase, but not in the determination of guilt. Hitler had virtues as well.
Answering the question would have required even more verbosity, and a truly accurate answer would have been beyond my limits, I might suggest beyond Human limits. That is assuming you are referring to the positions of individual members of the group.
A burglar enters a home and kills the owner. Just how far does the state go in establishing a motive?
The Indian removal act was against a race and an ethnicity. When Hitler did it, we called it genocide. All Hitler wanted was the land that that Slaves occupied. Hitler’s justification was the same as the American Government’s. The inferiority of the victims justified the crime. The Trail of Tears was littered with the body of women and children by the thousands.
As for the Battle of Tippecanoe, what could the events leading to it, and the conduct of it be labeled other than genocidal? This was a part of a constant pattern in which Whites gained Amerindian lands, and the Amerindians died.
In Mexico, the majority of the people are mestizo, mixed Amerindian and Caucasian. In the United States, the vast majority are Caucasian. Today, the mestizo peoples enter from Mexico. There are very few mistizos native to the United States. Hitler congratulated the American people on this in Mein Kampf.
The intent was to take the land, the means was genocide. Is the burglar exonerated because all that he wanted to do was plunder the home when he slew the occupants? I repeat, what is the difference between manifest destiny and lebensraum?
Last edited:
Violation of Godwins Law
The adoption is much more specific though and stands as a counterpoint to suggestions that he hated natives. Jackson is a complicated figure.
lol - fair enough
Juries like to hear about motive but it is entirely irrelevant to a finding of guilt.
Hitler didn't send he Jews on a march to new territoty. He sent them on trains to ovens.
As I conceded our dealings with many native nations has been deeply wrong but it is not genocide. Hitler intended the extermination of Jews to the greatest extent possible. Our government wanted natives out of the way - not exterminated.
Was the roman conquest of its territory genocide? You are describing a war of territorial expansion puncuated with shameful events. That's not genocide. Genocide would have rounded them up for killing rather than ordering them to go away and fighting them when they wouldn't.
Systematically capturing jews for ovens is not the same as forcing people off their land. Each is shameful but shameful has degrees.
I think you're off you're rocker on this but such is your right and no doubt you likely feel the same
Hardly proof of a logical falsity. A couple of quotes from your cite.
The subject under debate at the moment is genocide.
Don’t recall claiming that Jackson hated Amerindians. He wanted their lands. If Jackson hated anybody, it was the British. Unfortunately, the last attempt to take Canada hadn’t gone too well. The Amerindians were a softer target than the British Empire. Agree on the complicated figure. I’m sympathetic on his private life, not so sympathetic on his public life.
Don’t recall bringing up Jews. Lebensraum involved the Slavic people. I was comparing Lebensraum with Manifest Destiny. Hitler wanted the Jews dead. Hitler didn’t particularly want to kill the Slavs, he just wanted their land. He felt that their racial inferiority gave him the right to take their land. Sound familiar?
Again, I didn’t bring up the final solution to the Jewish problem. I’m discussing lebensraum and it’s similarity to Manifest Destiny. This involves Slavs, not Jews.
I think you're off you're rocker on this but such is your right and no doubt you likely feel the same
No, you seem like a nice well adjusted 21st Century American to me. There is no reason to go out of your way to be maladjusted. As Chuang T’zu pointed out, if you are right and the world is wrong, and if you force your way upon the world, how then are you right? No quotes because that’s not the way he said it.
Last edited:
Not a matter of sympathy. Let's just call taking the natives' land theft. Theft and murder are not the same.
The problem is, Lebensraum was brutal, not genocidal. And when we talk genocide the Shoah is our best example for most people.
And Lebesraum wasn't genocide. Just predatory. It was definetly evil - but it wasn't genocide.
Our source of disagreement is definitional.
Main Entry: geno?cide
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Jackson moved the natives - he dod not systematically destroy them. Many died. It was horrific. I'll concede to a wide variety of deeply critical adjectives but it was not genocide. Genocide requires intent (deliberate) and that was not the intent of removal. If the intent was genocide there would not be reservations... only massive extermination facilities.
Yes, but if a burglar enters the home to steal, and the home owner protests, and the burglar kills him, is that not murder? Or are you contending that the burglar has the right of self defense?
I agree, it?s definitional. And propaganda works, but it doesn?t transcend meaning.
Genocide:
From the Merriam-Webster?s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0
And by the above definition, this looks like genocide to me.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1999 CD Edition.
Germany:
The Third Reich:
Now as to this.
[/quote]
If you will look at the above definition, extermination is not the only form of genocide. However, Jackson did intend to remove the Amerindians from an area. That?s all Hitler was doing with the Slavs. He wanted Lebensraum and to attain that, he was going to clear the Slavs from a given area. Killing them was one way to do that. In Jackson?s case, he was quite happy with that alternative as well. That was the choice the Amerindians faced under Manifest Destiny, move or die.
However, did the destruction of the culture of the Amerindians happen by chance, or design?
In the end, Hitler?s crime was attempted genocide and that meets the definition of genocide. America?s crime was genocide in multiple forms and only propaganda obscures that fact.
The US wasn't a burgler... those contemplate different facts. (Burglary, at common law is the breaking and entering of the dwelling place of another with the intent to commit a felony therein.... the US didn't sneak into a home. It plainly took.. by force when they deemed it necessary.
Again, without the intent to exterminate natives you have bad behavior not genocide.
Then you have an issue of fact to establish to make your case.
Where were American policies deliberately aimed at eliminating the population? You cannot look at the results to establish this. You have to look at what was intended... if you can establish the intent then you may introduce the acts to establish the crime of genocide.... but intent remains a threshold factor.
You can assert that the policies were in different, wich is horrififc enough, but you're gonna have to dig deep to establish that the policies were intended to kill every native possible.
You were the one that asserted it was theft. Now, you want to call it robbery. Please make up your mind.
Seems to me the US didn?t always declare its intentions ahead of time, but I?ll go your route. So if someone comes onto my property to take it by force, and I resist, and he kills me, it?s not murder?
Gee, so that?s the way I have to play. Nice to be told the rules.
Do you go to trial in your job? That should be interesting.
Let?s see, there is this dead guy on the ground and the other guy is standing over him with a smoking gun in his hand. Now, first we need a psychologist, and maybe a psychiatrist, or is that enough, I mean, after all, only God knows what goes on in the human mind. So is your next step to issue a subpoena for God?
In the case of the Yahi, they left one survivor, though we aren?t sure that he was a Yahi, at least a full blooded Yahi. So I guess they didn?t intend to kill every Yahi. After all, they overlooked this one. Obviously this isn?t Genocide. If they had intended to kill every one, they would have gotten Ishi, now wouldn?t they? Yes, your reasoning is bullet proof. Come to think of it, it was probably there in Mein Kampf, but I don?t recall where Hitler said he intended to kill every last Jew. Did he ever say that, and if he didn?t, then how can we accuse him of genocide? After all, what do six million bodies prove?
Not only that, look at all of the Jews that are still alive. Now obviously, if Hitler had intended genocide, there wouldn?t be any left. Why there were even Jews left in concentration camps in Germany when the American forces reached the camps. So how could this be genocide?
Now. granted, some very bad things took place, but not genocide.
By the way, what happened to lebensraum? Is it still not genocide? I guess not, after all, there are a lot of Slavs running around.
Oh, yes, that definition that I posted of genocide. Did you ever get a chance to glance at it? I guess not.
Similar threads
