Voted B, but there is a ton of nuance in the answer that the either/or option does not quite cover. It is in fact more complicated than that.
To start, the principle of the rule of law should be paramount. In a populist age where the public is apt to think that law is oppressive and a restriction on freedom and authenticity, this is even more the case.
As Burke said, "Liberty too must be limited in order to be preserved." Suffice to say, for democratic representative government to work with its whole plethora of rights - particularly in a culture that creates new rights with metronomic regularity - the rule of law is essential. Violate that principle and over time that violation will become habitual and bad things are apt to follow.
Set against that principle is the blunt fact of economic necessity and demographic reality. The American population is aging and the birthrate is almost below replacement level. There are a variety of factor causing this, many of which public policy cannot impact in any significant way. (Birthrates are, historically speaking, immune to any incentives government can proffer to increase them.)
Suffice to say the population is aging, the workforce is therefore shrinking relative to population and therefore there are fewer and fewer current and future workers and hence future taxpayers. This has all sorts of knock on effects - declining output, declining productivity, a decline in the ratio of workers paying into private and public (think Medicare and Social Security) pensions and welfare systems relative to the number of beneficiaries. This raising the tax burden on the poorest demographic - ages 18 to 25 - while reducing it on the richest - 65 and older.
Suffice to say, the easiest way to correct this problem is to import more workers through immigration. Albeit that poorly educated immigrants, lacking skills and not speaking the language are as apt to make matters worse and will exacerbate social tensions and pathologies.
Put simply, then, the issue is not that legal immigration should be easier, but the kinds of immigrants that are permitted. This is where the problem begins.
In fact, the issue splits several ways. The business community wants more educated legal immigrants. The agricultural and construction sectors want more manual laborers. The unions, with some exceptions, actually oppose more immigration as more workers tends to depress worker's wages. All of this mixing with the problems that come with trying to absorb alien cultures.
(It sounds great to admit more immigrants, until it turns out that they come from cultures where female genital mutilation is a common practice. They you get shouts from the open minded about the importance of women's rights. There is only so much open mindedness a culture can handle.)
Suffice to say, you can see how this not only divides society but splits the parties not only between each other but within themselves. This taking on more importance in that the United States is a society that gets its sense of national identity from adherence to the creeds articulated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So citizenship and the sense of national community is about what is in people's heads and therefore immigration becomes a even more existential question.
(As to the provision of benefits and such, that is probably not wise. As the economic and demographic data show, the nation needs immigrants who are economically productive. To make benefits available carte blanche would not make that easier but would draw in more poorly educated and less productive workers, thus creating both an economic drain and more cultural resentments.)
So the answer to the question of whether legal immigration should be easier is a qualified yes. In straight out absolutes most certainly. Rather, the difficulties begin in the shades of gray.
This is an excellent write up.
My stancr need context.:
I live in a country where the immigration is out of control. One a immigrant claim citizenship his extended family (cousin, grandfather, aunt, uncle, etc) can start the immigration process. We are currently having birth problem for the original population and the children of immigrants. People just can't afford getting kid without crazy investment and most couple only get one kid because of that. If we take half of the budget of tge immigrant of process and give it to the families struggling to get by our birth rate higher (including immigrant families). Our refugees are paid to be in my country and often bypass in front on the official list. More often than not the criteria is less harsh for s refugees than an immigrant. Refugees who managed to become get their hand on the citizenship often treat the original citizens and immigrant like shit since once they get tgeir citizenship, they lose their money source from thr government and must find a job to pay rent and food. The original population have a hard time to see the difference between immigrant and ex refugees. So immigrant are blamed for sll tge shit the refugee do. a lot of refugees have bevior problem on top of that and often fall in the crime life since that's all they know and all that they want to know (generalization). For both immigrant and refugee, some can't even speak the language of the original population...
My view on it according to my country situation:
We need to stop putting so much money on immigration and focus on tge problem we have currently in our country. Fix the birthrate would be a priority since it affect every one immigrant and original population. Stop taking those refugees and paying them for living in our country at our expense.
My general view :
It a must but you need to keep a close eyes on who you choose. is the person going to be a productive member of society? is he capable of speaking at least one of the language of the original population? mental ilness (heavy case?)? Is their culture mesh correctly with tge orginal population? It is not a right, nor a gift, nor a lottery. Only people who prove themselves worthy.
I'm a immigrant in my country and I see a lot failure in the immigration process. I am an odd sheep in my ethnic group. I am Seeing people getting their citizenship who clearly should not. I love my home country. But, things need to change and fast.
Living in Orange County, California with it's illegal immigrant problem that is draining our economy, I think if people come LEGALLY it would be acceptable. Still they should have some kind of trade or skill with which they can earn a living besides selling drugs, being in gangs, or through other crime. I have seen Russian immigrants who live in big, expensive houses getting Government support checks each month and I'm thinking WTF? If they can't come here and be self supporting then I say forget them. I'm tired of paying, through my high taxes, for free loaders to live here.
I mean look at london and other scandinavic countries. They are slowly turning in middleeastern countries. Most if the refugees are millitary age men which should protect their country instead of leaving their kids/sisters/wife and raping western women. Since the refugee crisis people are afraid of going out night
that´s not true, London maybe but some scandinavic countries have way higher barriers for refugees than many European countries. Countries like Sweden or Denmark aren´t overrun by refugees. People leave their country because they don´t see a perspective for their future. If have a job and the government is no help, I´d also leave my country. It´s not that easy because I live in Germany and people are still going out as before 2015. At the moment we´re not going because of Covid everything is closed down, but without the pandemic the clubs and disco would be full as well.
I respect people like you. I just can't understand why such refugees dont get aborted immediately.
Without such refugees people like you would not be seen bad.
@Lionman95
No, in fact what she said is absolutely true. Read about the grooming gangs. Most of whom are made up of Pakistani immigrants in England. Also read about how the police and victims are threatened with prosecution if they dare mention these people are middle eastern or speak about the origins of these people, as the English government classifies doing so as a hate crime. Apparently it’s now a crime to tell the truth and define the exact nature of the problem and the exact nature of the guilty parties. Also take note of how the media has attempted to mislead people by saying these rape gangs are gangs of Asians. Sure. Their Asians. Southwest Asians, meaning from the Middle East. There is a deliberate attempt to hide the fact these people are largely Muslims, and have a different culture as well as different values form the populace of England. Nobody wants to talk about that though citing racism and bigotry against Muslims, which is completely justified given the ideologies involved in the situation.
Also pay attention to the EU criticizing Hungry for not playing along and firmly rejecting the deliberate mass importation of foreigners.
This is an attempt to Islamify Europe and its deliberate. It’s part of the larger agenda of globalization which the doctrines of multiculturalism are based on. These are deliberate attempts to erode national identity, and to stifle nationalism and patriotism by importing (I don’t say immigration, they seem to go out of their way to bring people in) as many foreigners as possible and implanting them in various nations.
@Exterminatore Yes, I don´t know so much about London/UK. The EU is critizing Hungary mostly because for them being hypocritical because Hungary wants to get the EU´s money being fonded by them and but they don´t want to eat the parts of the cake they don´t like to have. Everybody´s talking about the Muslims and immigrants shall honor the European traditions and values, but most of the so-called conservatives give a f*** in their own lifes when it comes to honor any kind of tradition. They are doing it online but offline it´s either "too hard" or uncool. People fear Europe will become a Muslim society, because they fear change. People want to have like it has been 50 years ago, but that´s not gonna happen. It´s not part of agenda, it´s a consequence of US American war policy. Because most people who come are from Irak or Afghanistan or Iran, countries who the US had attacked in some way in the last 20 years. The countries are destroyed leaving the people with no hope for the future and no perspective.
Yes no one wants to talk negatively in any kind of immigration policy because that´s either racist or not Christian. I´m not fund of immigration, it´s just not the case that the scandinavic countries are overrun by refugees because they have the higher immigration standards than other rich countries in Europe. By the way it´s not true that just Muslim men rape women, because truth be told also European guys do that. No. European guys aren´t holy, we are objectifying girls and women just the same. Am I proud of it? No, but the truth is we aren´t any different than they are. So I´m German living in a generation that thinks of patriosm and nationalism only when it comes to soccer.
Sure. European men as men anywhere commit rape. They however don’t do it in mass and as a deliberately planned attack. Most rapists don’t get together with 5 or 10 other rapists and say: “let’s go out and rape and molest women together.”
Why should Hungary like those policies. They aren’t good for Hungry. The EU was supposed to be about economic prosperity, NOT policy making as far as things like immigration.
I’m American. Where we supposed to just sit back and not do anything after roughly 3000 of our citizens were mass murdered? After we repeatedly demanded of Afghanistan turn over Bin Laden and his henchmen and they deliberately stalled and ultimately denied doing so. We were fully justified for our invasion there.
And what it Iraq. Are you aware that Iraq repeatedly and deliberately violated the cease fire agreement after the end of Operation Desert Storm? I know personally and was part of Operation Southern watch which was set up to ensure they complied with the terms and it enforced trade embargo’s for not doing so. They didn’t want to cooperate as they failed to do so so many times resulting in the invasion. Not to mention their continued attacks on the Kurds which was why the no fly zone was established and enforced.
There is a difference between change and the attempted globalization and islamification we see going on right now. People fear Europe will become Muslim because of the deliberate importation of many as many Muslims as possible. Which is readily observable. Muslims and western atheists and Muslims and Christians have a completely different value system which is completely incompatible.
@Exterminatore I have said it´s the only consequence, I´m not blaming America for it.
As far as there being no agenda why the repeated attempts to jam multiculturalism and globalization down our throats? Why not let it happen naturally? Because it’s not natural. The importation of “others” is the direct proof. Each nation should have its own people, customs and laws and trying to change those under the guise that their “racist” when they in fact are not implies there’s an agenda.
Yeah, let’s go import as many Muslims as possible most of whom have no job skills and will on government assistance long term paid for by individual tax payers and let’s try to say nationalism and patriots are bad and call anyone who disagrees a racist. Further more let’s import as many non white not Christian or secular people as possible to prove how not racist we are. Have you kissed a Muslim today? No? Then you’re a racist. How is it you think there is no deliberate agenda on the part of leftists in both Europe and America to erode national sovereignty and tradition and national identity and replace it with a nebulous mixing of every race and culture possible. How exactly does doing so better any nation? It doesn’t. That’s the problem.
@Exterminatore Hungary doesn´t have to like it, but they are in the same boat as every country around them. If they don´t want to do so, the European Union can reduce the fundings they get (mostly paid by Germany). No, I´m not blaming America, especially killing Bin Laden and defeating the IS was more than neceessary. It´s a just coincedence that people from those countries are the majority of the refugees coming here. If Europe becomes Muslim it´s also because Europe isn´t Christian anymore but likely a relativistic bunch of anything and everythings concerning values and traditions. There are things that are completely different between Americans and for instance German people. Here the churches ask the government to lower the standards of immigration.
@Lionman95
The fault for the immigration is to be blamed on the individual governments of Europe in which they occur, as they have the ultimate and final authority.
Europe no longer being Christian is absolutely the biggest factor in this and it’s impact is immeasurable.
For the churches to request this is beyond absurd and I was unaware of that. Why would they want massive amounts of people who worship a false god coming? To further influence godlessness in Europe? As if the communistic liberals running around Europe with their hatred for God was not enough! Or is it the churches are trying to fit into the culture and show just how non racist they are? God makes a definite distinction between his people and others, the churches should follow God’s lead and keep the Muslims out. I am staunchly against Islam and the islamification of Europe. Islam is a false religion with a false god. Moreover I see it as far more dangerous than any other religion. I don’t see buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Jains, or followers of any other religion killing people in the name of their god. The Muslims would like to establish a world wide caliphate. A cursory study of Islam and its tenants will quickly reveal its a religion of violence and hatred for non Muslims that purposes the murder and enslavement of all non Muslims. There are no shortage of ex Muslims who are willing to arrest to that. Many would call me a racist for being solidly against Islam and the followers of the religion. Islam isn’t a race and I’m against it and it’s followers. Many leftists would call me an islamaphobe. That I am. I can’t think of any rational reason not to express concern and disdain for a violent religion that seeks to kill and enslave all non followers and as for the individual Muslims themselves... I don’t want to hear silly arguments about how “they’re not all like that, and it’s only the 1% extremists to be concerned about. That is a crock of crap. They carry the ideology with them.
Opinion
37Opinion
Prioritizing people that will benefit this country. In addition allowances made for people fleeing for their lives on a case by case basis after a thorough investigation, followed lastly by anyone who wants to come LEGALLY. Quotas should be made. We should first grant doctors and scientists and other people who will benefit us, and emergency situations citizenship first. Then admit everyone else. We have enough competition for the American worker to get jobs after having to compete with the flood of illegals. America should look out for America and the interest of Americans FIRST.
One thing I’m fond of saying is the best way to help the poor is not become one of them. If you’re poor, you can’t spare much and can’t help too many. If you’re better off you have more surplus resources to help others.
The same holds true for countries. If we have policies that benefit all the nations then we will have nothing for ourselves and nothing left to give. We can’t help anyone in that circumstance.
I’m strongly against globalist policies. America first, then others as were able.
I have seen your stupid crap replies on this thread and I only have one thing to say, Yes we Muslims are taking over. What are you going to do about it? Exactly nothing. Your messiah Donald Trump is out of office. Now there will be much more immigration to America hopefully. From all around the world. Keep crying.
Taking over huh? That’s the goal isn’t it? Establish a world wide caliphate and kill everyone who won’t submit?
B. Because you can't control exactly how many people will be born, or will die, or what they'll choose to do. Therefore you need to fill in what's missing.
But that's it. It should be extremely regulated, with a background check, and an obligation not just to integrate, but to assimilate, which include finding a job, learning the values, culture and language of the country, and willing to be a part of it and not just live with your own community.
And a trial period in which you'll be a "citizen apprentice" and show that you're really willing to assimilate and not be a burden. If you fail, you're out.
If you're a criminal before, you're out.
If you refuse to assimilate, you're out.
If you commit a serious enough crime, you're out.
If you lied on your background, you're out.
No country need someone who will come and act as if he was still in his previous country, or follow opposite values to the country's values. "Coming legally" shouldn't be enough, you have to be useful somehow.
Also, immigrant from a different culture should be kept in a very small minority as they shouldn't change anything in the country's culture.
OK answer, but law works in both ways, so coming legally is enough. Cultures changes with time, so its impossible to keep it in frozen state. I think Its more about culture itself, if people of are proud of there culture, then there are hight chances that imigrants will asimilate into it, just because they will want to belong to something and probably locals won't take no for an answer, you assimilate or your pretty much out of biggest social circle and probably job if you can't be bothered to learn language.
I do demand everyone to speak in my language unless they are here for short term or tourists. I do speak in 4 languages so I do expect them to be able to learn language.
This is a dumb choice. You pick the one who will allow you to collect more tax in the future and take a very long time to take back the tax. The young KIDS.
You don't want some 50-year-old has-been joining the country even if he is very beneficial now. Who is going to pay for his healthcare when he is 65? You?
You don't want the rich people either. How many rich guys pay taxes? Rich people don't pay taxes.
Pick well educated parents with 2-4 kids. It doesn't matter what the parents can get as a job. You get 4 kids who will grow up and pay for the parents plus at least 2 more old people!!!
Even better, get parents with STEM career or entrepreneurs. They can make money without knowing the language. And their kids will be taken care of all the way to universities so you don't have to pay anything.
Many "young people" end up bringing their elderly parents to the country once they immigrate, through family reunion.
At this point in American history ideally we would have a near moratorium on further immigration so as to enable us to assimilate the 70 million we have admitted through the legal immigration system over the last 50 years. We have done that before in our history (the immigration act signed into law by Calvin Coolidge in 1924) and it was good for the country. Assimilation is necessary so that --- among other things --- we don't have to "press 1 for English." And obviously the existing laws against illegal entry into the country should be vigorously enforced and our borders secured.
I'm an immigrant to South Africa. From an immigrant's perspective, a lot of the laws in any country favour the citizens rather than either legal or illegal immigrants. Even if they're married to a citizen.
There isn't a nation on the planet that can actually claim they don't have enough physical space for immigration to be allowed.
The latest "f*ck you" move by Trump to try and prevent travel to the USA from African nations at the end of his tenure as ruler of America (where he seems to think he's king, not an elected representative of the population) smacks more of his own racist views than a legitimate policy on immigration. He is also trying to establish chaos that Biden will be left to sort out. As a British citizen I will be avoiding America until all his policies have been straightened out.
Just an FYI, Trump is not the ruler of America. We, the people are the rulers.
I don’t think that’s the case. There are a number of things concerning alleged voter fraud that are not being reported in most of the media. It is very clear many news networks have leftists agendas and I have heard they give false, misleading information, and withholding key pieces of information multiple times in the past, especially when it comes to gun rights issues in relation to mass shootings. This is also widely known in regard to their repot in general of the riots that have been occurring here since May.
With the current situation, for example, in PA a judge has halted the certification of votes as of yesterday as a result of the evidence Rudy Giuliani submitted to a judge there. Rudy stated he only submitted a small portion of the evidence he has. There are a number of other legal issues in other states that may yet be heard. Sidney Powell and Lin Wood have filed suits in GA.
What I can say is this. If there was no evidence and this is just a legal tactic being used on flimsy accusations the judge in PA would not have halted the certification. Many of the judges who have thrown out legal challenges are political appointees. They were specifically appointed for their views on interpretation of the laws.
I think Trump actually has legit cases in these states.
What I can say is if these accusations turn out to be frivolous it’s unforgivable, but that doesn’t appear to be the situation at this point.
No imigration control, people had move all our history to country wher is more prosperity.
Making selection will bring just more dificultys for thous people who can't make a good life in theyr contry. They will eventualy change in criminals and thiefs.
The imigrants need to be asimilated just.
Try to get to the local religion or at last theyr future kids.
Get a job
Learn the leanguage
Try to mary local people to mix and create a new citazean.
To carry nationalism a step further, I suggest to not only screen immigrants for wealth, but also for genetic 'wanted' attributes.
PLUS:
For each accepted immigrant, the government should expel a useless or unworthy present citizen in return. Alternatively, collect them in a secure and secluded area, and use them up in power plants.
This way, the government can i. e. control voter majorities and breed a population with more pure genes.
(if you, reader, can't see me my sarcasm... then you will love my idea)
i think we should first off make a very clear distinction between migration and refugees.
i won't go into refugees but:
we should only allow immigration with very strict criteria. one of the criteria should be: the people who are let in have to have at least the money needed to go back to where they came from, if they can not manage to become a productive member of our society.
also i think it would be sensible to hard cap the number of immigrations a year at a certain point as to not create internal cultural stress, that may lead to hate against those immegrants.
The pro-immigration policy maintained by the West is the West trying to continue colonialism, if you take the intellectuals from developing nations they will forever stay a developing nation. It is also a cheap cop out for governments to deal with declining birth rates, declining birth rates are as a result of the failures of modern day capitalism and housing crises, people who feel stable and happy are more likely to have a lot of children. The fact that people are not is as a result of the cost of living being too high. People are too "busy" to get "busy" because when you need 2 incomes to sustain a house today whereas just a couple of decades ago you only needed 1 it results in people living to work rather so than working to live.
It's not like the west is poaching intellectuals from other countries though. The fact is most people are self serving and therefore these "intellectuals" would rather move to the west where they have a higher chance of success than if they remained in their native country and helped to benefit their own country.
I also question the idea that people who are more financially stable are more likely to have more children, it definitely makes sense, but more often than not, the reverse tends to be true. Poorer communities have more unplanned teen pregnancies and larger families, whereas wealthier families tend to have fewer kids. Some African countries have by far the highest birth rates, yet experience widespread poverty.
Also I don't think a low birth rate is necessarily a bad thing provided it balances the death rate. A stable population is quite healthy when you consider that the larger the population, the less liveable the country tends to be.
B. Why would ANY country openly permit people in to live there, if they can't be of benefit to that country? The US spends enough in Federal aid housing, feeding and giving medical care to people who are here illegally. Mexico and it's issues are not our problem. Perhaps the citizens need to have another revolution so that they can make their own country one they do not want to leave.
Fully agree. We can encourage that by ensuring illegals stay out. Sooner or later there will be enough dissatisfied people in Mexico to overthrow their corrupt government and the drug lords who run that country, solving their own problems. Their problems are not ours.
Everyone is an immigrant, if you go back far enough.
The problem has never been immigration, but illegal immigration - which has multi faceted and complex issues.
it isn't simply a matter of "close the borders" - smugglers and traffickers love that, as it's profitable for them. Nor is it a matter of "open borders" corporations and agencies love that, as they can get specialist staff for cheaper than local staff.
Right now we're having some problems with Venezuelans illegally coming here and we've deported some, including their kids, back to Venezuela. Some are desperate or won't learn; they've come back. I say, deport them all! If they want to come here, let them do it the right, legal way.
Legal immigration should be the only acceptable method all others methods should be immediately deported my mother immigrated to US and was married to my dad who immigrated to the US as a child and was veteran of the US Army and she was a permanent US Alien resident for over 40 years before her US citizenship was finally approved
Humans have been moving around since day one, it's our natual behavior. Perhaps what's needed is global effort to improve countries that people are fleeing from
F - Do as you please but don't be a freaking hobo or a troublemaker.
I'm actually a migrant from Germany in the poor east (forced due to my parents making countless of poor choices and the family is full of hobos). I wish to return. The poor east is not for me.
The US is a nation built by immigrants.
Immigration gives the United States an economic edge in the world economy. Immigrants bring innovative ideas and have enriched American culture
We need to embrace immigrants, not exclude them.
I've gotten into some quite heated arguments with older members of my family about immigration.
I believe that as a rich country it is our duty to help those in need (since in all likely hood we caused the war). Also i think all of these people who think we shouldn't take refugees in would expect other counties to take them if there county was in a civil war or whatever reason someone might need to leave there home
I kinda agree with you, that ritch countries should help out a bit, bit they should not be worlds valet for poor. Its not give them stuff but if they want to start over give them chance but also demand that they do there part.
About civil war, its hard for me to understand running away and not fighting four your country. If you can't fight for your own country what chances are that you will fight for mine when time will come for it? Yes there are times, when not fighting might be better, but good deamit you should do everything you can to fight for your country.
We lost around 48% of population in first world war and in freedom fight, in second world war we lost around 200k from about remaining 1.5m then lost about an other 120k due to solviet repressions and genocide. Im not running away from an other fight if its going to happen.
Well many reasons one i don't expect anyone to fight for my country (uk) since am not dying for some guy who private school and had all of the power handed to him
Also think your forgetting about women, children, the old, the disabled and men who can't fight for whatever reason.
Also a lot of these fights aren't standing out in field shooting at each other, it's gorilla warfare. So. It's dangerous just walking down the street in some of these counties bc of car bombs or random attacks, which is why they want to leave.
Also the reason why some counties are poorer than others is bc a lot of the richer counties owned them took all of there resources and when it didn't look good to own another country they let them go and now they have to build all over again.
So yeah counties should take responsibility for there history and try to help the people who are suffering now bc of the mistakes of the past.
Country doesn't end up with govorment, I could care less about them. But i do love this land and people on it.
You seam to missunderstend fighting, its not always shooting, woman and kids can prowide with information on enemy movements. As for men who won't fight, its people duty to grow there country into better one, protecting it to.
Also you dont seam to have idea about warfare, all those fighting age men who were 'refugeese' from syrian war, they could have ended that war long ago if they would hape picked side. No one can fight gurrilla warfare in territory they dont have majority of citizen support. Gurrila warfare in its essence is firearms at home hidden and attacks on targets of oportunity, with small semi permanent fighter groups.
I know it, its one of few real ways we can protect our country in case of bear attack.
F) I support a tiered immigration. Make it easy for those who want to come here to work to do so legally. Be insanely tough on illegal immigration. No social programs or handouts for anyone who wants to immigrate here.
I have no issue with people coming into the country legally I think we need to vet them and do a simple background check in order to let them in but I don’t think we should bar people from coming into the United States
A.
If they're so great that they'll enrich our culture and benefit us, why are they fleeing their home countries and why haven't they made that place great? If we need them so badly why are they coming here? Why are we not going to them?
I literally don't care, I was born in Eastern Europe now I live in western Europe and in a few years I'll move to Southeast Asia. I don't have a country to protect. The planet is my territory and should be everyone's.
you have leftist nazis burning jobs.
immiagrants takeing up jobs
and finally deversifcation bull shit, no white men allowed unless your a fagot
There no such thing as a leftist nazi
The problem with illegal immigrants is that it is too hard to become a legal immigrant. If we made it easier for everyone to become a legal citizen we would have far less illegal immigrants. Problem solved.
A welfare state plus open borders equals the death of the nation.
Controlled immigration with people who benefit the country.
No problem if they come legally my parents moved here legally plus The US is founded by immigrant built on backs of immigrants.
You need to go back.
Your parents were not.
@Frontier-Man that's not how it works.
@Tea-Spaghetti Yes it does. Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Eritrea, Morocco all expelled the descendants of White settlers. That is my model
Only difference is that it will be people that came after 1900 that will be expelled. Descendants of slaves too.
@Frontier-Man by your logic Europeans should be expelled to.
You're on stollen Native land
@Frontier-Man Are you native? If not pack up & fuck off American soil.
@SomeBlondeChick All "native American" land was consenually purchased. The United States gave 20x more money to Indians in the Louisiana territory for that same land than they gave to the French for that land.
Go look up "treaties with American Indians" and look through and research each treaty and see how much money they got and look at the chiefs who voluntarily signed off on the agreements.
I love when communist lefties who have been indoctrinated and lied to believe that whites stole the natives land and there for no one should be against illegal immigration.
I love it because a very quick survey of history refutes such and argument.
Let’s start out in 1607 when. Jamestown, the first European settlement in America was established. Are you commies aware the natives gave them permission to build a settlement there? That Captain John Smith was adopted by the chief of the Powhattans and that Thomas Rolfe married his daughter, Pocahontas? That sure doesn’t sound like the Europeans stealing land to me.
Then let’s jump a little latter into the $1600’s. The Dutch purchased Manhattan from the Indians for 60 guilders worth of trade. That is called a purchase. they bought it. Does that make them here illegally? Of course the English conquered it from the Dutch later on.
In the Early 1720 the French by treaty with Iroquois Indians built Fort Niagara in upstate NY. By treaty. That sure doesn’t sound like invading and stealing someone’s land.
There are many more cases that Europeans and later Americans were given permission to inhabit an area or purchased land. It is also true that main plains Indian tribes established treaties and verbal agreements in which they deliberately and that is according to several historical accounts from the Indians themselves.
Much land was also gained by America through conquest. For example in both the American Revolution and War of 1812 tribes that sided with the English were forced to cede lands conquered by Americans. An example of this would be the Iroquois, who by the way initially agreed to fight as American allies and the agreement was upon victory they would have their lands protected by the Americans. However after making an agreement with the Americans they very deceitfully talked to the British who also granted the same and other provisions. TBC
@Exterminatore Check out "How we bought the United States" or "Accounting for Conquest" by Robert Lee. It gives figures on the amount of money spent on the Louisiana territory, it's mind blowing how much American Indians actually got.
The Iroquois then felt assured of English victory and rather than formally rescind their agreement with the Americans, sided with the English as an ally and launched a sneak attack on the Americans. That lead to this statement by George Washington who was speaking specifically about the Iroquois:
“The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent them from planting more.”
This statement has been hailed by Indians and their leftist allies as proof of “racist” George Washington and his intended genocide on the Indians. Again, he was specifically speaking about 1 tribe. The Iroquois. Who deliberately attacked the Americans and I might add they were American non combatants who were deliberately attacked without warning after deceitfully choosing to renigg on their standing treaty with the Americans. First of all, since when is taking captives equated with genocide? If he intended genocide they would have been killed where they were found. Instead they were intended to be prisoners of war. Since when is destroying enemy supplies and dwellings, in this case crops and lodgings during a war considered “racism?” That is completely tactically and morally justifiable in war, an act of war they brought on themselves by deceitfully sneak attacking non combatant Americans.
In the War of 1812, several tribes who ceded land did so via combat and conquest and the resulting peace treaties to include the: Shawnee, Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Seminoles, Choctaws, and others. The Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 and subsequent peace treaties were signed individually with each Indian tribe ending hostilities with them as English allies. If you fight a war and loose land as a result of defeat that is not equivalent to racism nor is it equivalent to stealing land or illegal immigration.
To be continued.
Trail of tears was consensually agreed to by their chiefs. They also received financial compensation.
You also had other instance that happened to Whites. 40,000 Whites in Minnesota were expelled by the Sioux for example.
Fast forward to the 1820-1880s. As I stated previously, although my auto spell corrector ruined my statement, many plains and western Indian tribes had standing agreements with the Americans which by the Indians own admission they deliberately lied and attacked American non combatants resulting in their subsequent loss of land.
I am not saying in every instance the Europeans and subsequent Americans did not have wrong doing and did not steal land in every instance but more often than not land was lost either by peace treaty after hostilities in which the Indians lost or was either purchased or permission was given to the Europeans or the subsequent Americans to occupy the land. I love how these facts are not taught nor stated and we jump right to how the racist Europeans and Americans stole all the Indians lands and were the first illegal immigrants.
In 1803 the Americans made the Louisiana purchase from France. Did you all forget about that? Purchase. Meaning bought and paid for, not stollen. That territory included much all of the following states: AK, MIssouri, IA, OK, KS, NB, SD, ND, CO, WY, and MT. As stated it was a purchase. Meaning bought, from France. The Indians living in those territories were technically French subjects or Spanish subjects depending on the area, although they were largely allowed to live and do as they pleased. Article VI of the Louisiana Purchase stated the Americans agreed that the Americans would agree to execute any standing treaties made previously between the Spanish and the various Indian tribes on that land as the French did after gaining control of it. However when many of those tribes didn’t keep their previous agreements as made with the Spanish and upheld by the French to the Americans who now purchased that land wars resulted. Those wars with the individual tribes who were belligerents often resulting in a loss of land. That doesn’t exactly fit into the narrative of how the “racist” Americans stole the Indians lands.
If one side does not keep their agreements and war results in loss of land that’s not theft, it’s acquisition by conquest and is justified. For what it’s worth many tribes warred with other tribes and literally stole their land. I never hear leftists mention this.
The treaty of Guadalupe Hildago ended the Mexican War. As a result of that treaty the Mexicans ceded part or all of: CA, NV, UT, KS, OK, CO, NM. Again as a result of that treaty the Americans agreed to upheld any previous existing agreements between those tribes and Mexico. Just as had happened with the Louisiana Purchase many tribes attacked settlers in lands they perceived to be theirs resulting in wars with America. That resulted in American attacks and subsequently resulted in the Indians loosing land. Since when is it wrong to retaliate for attacks? Since when is it outright theft of territory when one nation conquers another and by mutual agreement cedes lands. Since never.
But you leftists love talking about racist America and how America stole land from Indians making them illegal immigrants, all while ignoring the facts I just mentioned.
Since the dawn of time many nations and Indian tribes conquered lands from others. If you’re such believers in this “Europeans and Americans are racists and were the first illegal immigrants” argument which in your mind justifies the current situation of illegal immigrants why do I not hear any of you proposing all lands since recorded history be returned to their original owners? Because that’s impossible and it’s a bunch of crap and all of you know it. Further more if you really believe this myth, why are all of you choosing to remain on lands you believe were stollen. If you believe that than you are in possession of stolen property and the benefactors of war crimes. My suggestion is that you right the wrong. All of you get off the lands you believe belong to others. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Or we can stop this nonsense and you can read history for yourselves and stop with nonsense theoretical arguments and accept and understand that America is a sovereign nation. It’s borders are set by international treaty and there is no justification for people to enter and take up residence in country in which violates TBC.
It’s laws. Despite certain leftist governors and government officials deliberately breaking the laws of this country and deliberately making illegal immigration possible.
@Frontier-man
As you can see I probably don’t need to read that book. I’ve cited several facts and examples from history.
What’s really going on is a globalist agenda and that agenda includes lying and indoctrinating people into believing tremendous wrong doings occurred in the accusation of territory we know as America today. This is done to get people to accept and promote illegal immigration while deliberately attentions to give an altered or misrepresented view of history and is done all while ignoring certain historical facts and/or deliberately misrepresenting them.
I’d like to hear a response to what I just said. I’d also like to know if you’re ready to get off land you believe was wrongfully appropriated, to right the wrong and act out the convictions you have?
@Exterminatore It's not a book, it's an article. You should read it though, because your points on the Louisiana purchase would've been stronger with that argument. Only trying to help.
@Frontier-Man You're not native American so you deserve to be here less than an immigrant who arrived yesterday
@SomeBlondeChick The land was literally purchased, did you not see the thread? What's wrong you?
ALSO, does that same logic apply to other people? Black people aren't native to Kenya or South Africa. Asians aren't native to the Philippines. Does that mean they can't complain about immigrants? Just stop, you sound ridiculous.
I'm just ignoring Frontier-Man cause he sounds ridiculous.
@Tea-Spaghetti Literally every non-opinion I gave to back up my opinion was correct. You people have nothing but anger.
@Frontier-man
I have noted you have acknowledged my point on the purchasing of land from Indians.
So I’d like to know why you told Thea to go back and that her grandparents weren’t born here?
What is your rational for wanting to expel white settlers and people born here after 1900?
@Exterminatore I said that to piss them off. tbh, I don't care if they were born after 1900.
@Exterminatore Also, I was replying to someone else. Not you, I don't always @ so if that caused confusions that's why.
@frontier-man
So... when are you going back to where you came from? If you’re an Indian, you too have to go back. Back across the land bridge that no longer exists to Asia.
I hope you can see why this reasoning is futile.
I'd like to point out to a few commenters here that "buying land" in a currency that the Indians didn't even understand or value should give pause to the notion that somehow they were perfectly aware of the English concept of land ownership and that they engaged in monetary transactions without any further details. If an alien species showed up to your house and offered to buy it for e+88/7 Wacky Dollars, surely you would a) wonder wtf is going on and b) tell them to scram. The Indians DID tell them to leave once the beneficial trading stopped being so beneficial. There was literally an act in the 19th century called the "Indian Removal Act". Not exactly subtle.
@Exterminatore Indians weren't even the first people in the Americas, that was the Quasi-Australoids, population-Y.
@Derekk
You’d have a point if you were correct. Of course, for example it would be outrageous and fraud for the Dutch to give literally 60 guilders to the Indians for Manhattan. Those Indians had no concept of currency and it would be literally useless. They were given 60 guilders of trade as I stated. They were given items they found useful.
In regards to there’sIndian removal act, read what I stated. The territory won in the Mexican War and the territory purchased in the Louisiana Purchase make up probably 2/3rds of what is currently the U. S. in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, much of the land had been previously owned by the Spanish. The Spanish made agreements with most if not all of the tribes in that secretion of land to allow them to basically govern themselves. When the French acquired the land they kept the same agreements as the Spanish. Part of the the contract under Section 6 was the US was to also uphold the agreements. Often the US government renegotiated treaties with the individual tribes and often those tribes failed to keep their agreements resulting in warfare. Granted that’s not true 100% of the time, but often was the case.
The same holds true with the lands ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Under that treaty the US agreed with Mexico that they would uphold the previous agreements between Mexico and the various Indian tribes. The results were the same as with the Louisiana Purchase.
In regards to the Indian Removal Act I’d need to look up the previous treaties those tribes had with the Government. I know the act authorized the government to renegotiate for those lands. I know that that act mainly had effect on the tribes of the southeast (Choctaw, Creeks, Seminole etc.) The problem with anything today and including history is it has been relayed by left wing historians to fit their narratives. In my statements above I gave one clear example of a statement by George Washington that is often quoted as proven racism tbc
@Derekk
Against Indians without explaining the background. The US governments dealing with the Indians historically is filled with many such instances. That is also the case with other historical events, like the Crusades, in which there are many instances of left wing historians not telling the whole truth. From a cursory search we can see that with the Indian Removal Act that Those southern tribes were forcibly removed. What I want to know is did the US government do so unjustly. At the end of the war of 1812 the us signed the Treaty of Ghent. That officially ended the war with England. The tribes effected by the Indian Removal Act fought on the English side. Each individual tribe negotiated separate peace treaties with the US government. What I’d like to see is what were the terms of those treaties. It is very difficult to find that information. If under those treaties the Government retained full rights to the land, then removing the Indians from it would be justified. I know that Indian Removal Act allowed for the government to renegotiate with the tribes. What I’d need to see is what we’re the original negotiations and what we’re the new ones. These facts are important and in fact vital to determine wrong doing by the US government in this matter. However finding the stipulations in those original treaties is proving difficult.
I have a question for you. You stated: “The Indians DID tell them to leave once the beneficial trading stopped being so beneficial.” Which Indians and who did they tell to leave?
@Frontier-man
That’s something I know nothing about. All I know is American History in regards to the Americas from 1607 on.
@Exterminatore My apologies for misunderstanding your comment on the trade deals. I think I saw a dollar sign next to 1600 in your first comment and then my semi-dyslexia saw that and "guilders" and thought you were implying they were bought off with Dutch currency. My point about conceptions of land ownership remain however. To say that the Indians were willfully and knowingly signing documents that were previously foreign in terms of philosophy and language should be absurd without reference to any specific treaty, but I'll mention one that I can remember. The Treaty of Casco in the 17th century after Philips's War was one of the earlier cases where Indian tribes were forced into accepting English Lockean style property rights that were unrecognized before the colonists arrived. Yes the English compensated the Indians in ways that would likely have been considered fair and humane at the time, but this misses the point: the rules of a game, political or otherwise, have to be agreed upon by all participating parties BEFORE the game takes place. Failure to do so is to enforce a framework on an unwilling party with the convenient refrain of: "but it's fair because this is how I always play it." Similarly, you mention the Americans potentially having a "legitimate" right to forcefully reallocate the Indians for retribution against them in previous armed conflicts. The settlers bring small pox, invasive species, and a foreign conception of government that Indians disapprove of, and when they rebel and ally themselves with various European powers to potentially limit the Manifest Destiny, it's treasonous and we must therefore punish them further for disobeying us. This is a bit like breaking into somebody's home, and using the fact that the owner pulled a gun on you, so you set forth an agreement where they relinquish their rights at gunpoint.
@Derekk
It’s ok. My auto spell corrector went crazy in that post.
How would Indians sign documents without someone knowing the language? Must be literate to read and write, including signing ones name. I’m sure some treaties were by verbal agreement.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the U. S. Government was always in the right either. There certainly were times where they were the aggressors.
I’m simply refuting silly arguments like “Europeans were the first illegal immigrants, so that justifies the current status of illegal immigration.”
I’m also showing for lefties who love to cry about racism in regards to the U. S. and Indian relations that it’s not exactly how they’re saying it was. It’s not as if Europeans just rolled into N. America and started swiping land. It’s likewise untrue the U. S. government had a policy of genocide and waging aggressive wars in regards to the Indians in each and every case. In fact that is not true In the majority of cases.
That’s all I’m getting at. I hate these silly attempts to justify foreign nationals taking up residence in this country illegally based on events that occurred between 400 and roughly 140 years ago. So I made it a point to put some facts out there that are not being disclosed in these silly arguments. I’m equally tired of accusations of America being an irredeemably racist nation, in which often the governments relations with the Indians is cited while skipping over the facts and jumping straight to racism.
i think a group of people, who systematically took land and murdered a civilization, should be a shamed of themselves
sound familar
#WHITESKILLEDNATIVES
@dave31989 Well-said 👏
#DECOLONIZE
I voted option (C), but only because it's the only one that's at least somewhat close to my position.
Zero immigration, through births.
I will NEVER compromise on this. It's this or death. I'm actually willing to suffer and die to prevent it. It means that much to me.
Similar cultures only, if you do not then there is too much chance of an immigrant inadvertently saying/doing some thing that will cause offence to the host
Legal nigration should be very controlled. Secondly, Illegal migrants need to be deported ASAP to their country of origin.
Open immigration. Give them a social security card (and tracking device maybe) so they can be tracked and pay taxes.
I voted B but I love the meme.
The Right Wing way: "If you're white, you're alright"
No, I want zero immigration. European Whites included.
@marriedwith2 is stupid he is always butthurt about anything remotely right wing because he thinks it's anti-black even though it was actually democrats who were slave owners. haha you're so dumb.
Wealthy people create jobs, so still far better than tax dollars.
No restrictions, BUT NO HANDOUTS EITHER meaning u wanna use our services pay up
I don’t care. Go where you please
B seems like the most sensible answer.
D
Unity is strength not diversity
I am for new world order.
u I chose Option B.
Screw the wall dig a lake
If you’re not American you have your own country
We got to many here already
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions