American Pioneers -- or 'Illegals'?

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
A number of the politicians calling for the criminalization of illegal immigrants may not be aware that they and a good many of their constituents could themselves be direct descendants of people who did some illegal migrating of their own many years ago. Much of the territory of the United States was settled by people -- hundreds of thousands of them -- who disregarded the law by squatting on public lands.

Of course, they had a ready reason for doing so: Like today's immigrants, they were seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Indeed, many of the current residents of the states between the Appalachian and Rocky mountains can trace their roots directly to these onetime criminals -- whom we now call "pioneers."

In the early decades of the 19th century, the federal government hoped to dispose of public land in its western territories by auctioning it to the highest bidder -- typically a northeastern land speculator. But this policy posed a serious obstacle to the settlers streaming west in hopes of acquiring cheap land to start a new life. Speculators often held land off the market for years, waiting for prices to increase so they could sell for a hefty profit.

Although federal law made it a crime to enter publicly owned land slated for auction, hundreds of thousands of squatters trespassed on this land, as well as on absentee-owned private holdings, and began to farm it illegally. The federal government tried at times to protect the land by sending the Army to clear squatters out, but the settlers would simply return once the soldiers had moved on.

Eastern politicians, many of whom dabbled in land speculation, condemned the squatters' defiance of federal law. They accused squatters of being "greedy, lawless land grabbers" who had no respect for law and order. In 1815 President James Madison issued a proclamation warning "uninformed or evil disposed persons . . . who have unlawfully taken possession of or made any settlement on the public lands . . . to remove therefrom" or face ejection by the Army and criminal prosecution. Henry Clay expressed a widely shared sentiment in 1838 when he dismissed the squatters as a "lawless rabble."

But once the squatters managed to put down roots, the federal government found it difficult, both politically and practically, to remove them. Accordingly, on 39 occasions before 1837, Congress enacted retroactive amnesties for squatters illegally occupying federal lands, despite the objection that these amounted to a reward for lawlessness. Ultimately the process of moving from occupation to ownership was fully legalized in the 1862 Homestead Act, which granted free title to settlers who met the statute's residency and improvement requirements. In one of the great ironies of American history, the lawless squatters underwent a dramatic image makeover in our collective memory to become noble pioneers.

The lesson for then -- and now? When the needs that drive large numbers of people to break the law are strong enough, it's unlikely that official repression will be able to stop them. This is not to say that the government isn't justified in attempting to regulate immigration. But efforts to get a handle on the problem must be undertaken with a proper respect for the dignity of illegal migrants and for the legitimate needs that push them to break the law.

Who knows? Perhaps in a hundred years, when the heated debate over illegal immigration has long since made way for some other controversy, our grandchildren will watch movies or television shows celebrating the heroism of today's illegal immigrants -- or "pioneers."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401448.html
 
So some of our ancestors may have squatted? Is this the old, "well they did something wrong so we can too" argument?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So some of our ancestors may have squatted? Is this the old, "well they did something wrong so we can too" argument?[/quote]

There's not really a question over whether they did. I think the argument is more that illegal immigration, or things that are within the ballpark of that term, have been essential in forming the current face of this country.
 
LMAO

Reminds me of when my History Prof said

"the first wetbacks where Anglo-saxon "american" crackers" its so true, so true
 
WE should DEPORT Those Damn POtato eating IRISH.. I'm pretty they took part in some illegal immigration when all their crops failed and they had nothing to eat..

Oh wait, its sort of like the same reason why Illegal Mexicans are coming into this country.
 
Pioneers? Bullshit, the dictionary defines a pioneer as "one the first colonists or settler in a new territory", wrong there...another definition, "take the lead or initiative in; participate in the development of" so if they are such "pioneers" why don't they mobilize and turn their attention towards their home land? Too bad they don't give a shit about that.

We have to divert huge amounts of social services in order too cater too this massive amount of immigrants, while I am all for human rights, how about the human rights of the citizens here? They seem to be taking second stage, naturally since the influx of mexican immigrants is so vast it's just a fact, social services suffer for it, in turn the citizens suffer for it.

Negating legal beurocracy that millions of people deal with, and work hard for, sneaking in and then demanding rights, that earns no merit, and it certainly doesn't earn "pioneer" status.
 
A number of the politicians calling for the criminalization of illegal immigrants may not be aware that they and a good many of their constituents could themselves be direct descendants of people who did some illegal migrating of their own many years ago.
Click to expand...
What do we call dscendants of illegal immigrants born on US soil? American citizens, case closed.
 
[quote name='Derwood43']Why not go all the way back to Plymouth? What right did the English have in taking the land from Native Americans?[/quote]

While that's true, the colonolialists did not recognize the other power as legitimate. Hispanics recognize the u.s. as a legitimate country, as did the ones we refer to as pioneers.

WE should DEPORT Those Damn POtato eating IRISH.. I'm pretty they took part in some illegal immigration when all their crops failed and they had nothing to eat..
Click to expand...

We didn't exactly control immigration then.

Pioneers? Bullshit, the dictionary defines a pioneer as "one the first colonists or settler in a new territory", wrong there...another definition, "take the lead or initiative in; participate in the development of" so if they are such "pioneers" why don't they mobilize and turn their attention towards their home land? Too bad they don't give a shit about that.
Click to expand...

I dunno, you could ask the same thing about our pioneers. It's not like they were the first to settle that land, and it's not like they focused on their "homeland".

sneaking in and then demanding rights, that earns no merit, and it certainly doesn't earn "pioneer" status.
Click to expand...

But the point is, the ones we consider pioneers did the same thing. The territory was claimed by the u.s., but it was still illegal to settle in it as they did.
 
I fail to see the correllation. Either through some fault of my own or the argument logic.

Those apples sure don't look like oranges to me.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Pioneers? Bullshit, the dictionary defines a pioneer as "one the first colonists or settler in a new territory", wrong there...another definition, "take the lead or initiative in; participate in the development of" so if they are such "pioneers" why don't they mobilize and turn their attention towards their home land? Too bad they don't give a shit about that.

We have to divert huge amounts of social services in order too cater too this massive amount of immigrants, while I am all for human rights, how about the human rights of the citizens here? They seem to be taking second stage, naturally since the influx of mexican immigrants is so vast it's just a fact, social services suffer for it, in turn the citizens suffer for it.

Negating legal beurocracy that millions of people deal with, and work hard for, sneaking in and then demanding rights, that earns no merit, and it certainly doesn't earn "pioneer" status.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
[quote name='camoor']So was Christopher Columbus a terrrorist or an illegal alien?[/quote]

Well, he did enslave and control much of the indigenous population he encountered. You could argue that he, along with many other settlers, fits the term illegal alien, as much as it could be applied in those times. Though it's more of a takeover than anything else.

Terrorist? He enslaved natives, tortured/killed them etc.. He did do things to subdue and strike fear into the natives, so I guess you could use the term terrorist. But I find it too loaded.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Pioneers? Bullshit, the dictionary defines a pioneer as "one the first colonists or settler in a new territory", [/QUOTE]
*cough*indians*cough*

:)
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There's not really a question over whether they did. I think the argument is more that illegal immigration, or things that are within the ballpark of that term, have been essential in forming the current face of this country.[/QUOTE]

Well, I think we can all agree that a lot of shitty behavior was essential in forming our country, period. I don't know that I want a hand's-off approach to any of that.

And I mean this from a purely semantic point, but what the hell does "the criminalization of illegal immigrants" mean? Let me try this: if they're illegal, that's because they are in violation of immigration law. Which technically makes them criminals. So ... how do you recriminalize criminals, exactly?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']My thoughts exactly.[/quote]

Ahhh ElPrincipe, such a good little conservative American christian - it might be beneficial to alter your perspective from that of the typical white Republican with European ancestry once in a millenea.
 
Ummmm not really a good argument in the defence of the illgeals considering wasnt Mexico full of Aztec Indians then the spanish kill all of them? We all have blood on our hands here. Also back in the early 20th century only about 2% of immigrants were ever sent back to their countrys so the doors i guess would have been consierd to have been open back then. But we are in the 21st century and them doors are closed.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']
We have to divert huge amounts of social services in order too cater too this massive amount of immigrants, while I am all for human rights, how about the human rights of the citizens here? They seem to be taking second stage, naturally since the influx of mexican immigrants is so vast it's just a fact, social services suffer for it, in turn the citizens suffer for it.

[/QUOTE]

We would have plenty of resources for social services if we weren't too busy cutting taxes and protecting our oil interests in the Middle East.
 
Mexicans are actually the children of Mayan (?) slaves raped by the Spanish.

[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Ummmm not really a good argument in the defence of the illgeals considering wasnt Mexico full of Aztec Indians then the spanish kill all of them? We all have blood on our hands here. Also back in the early 20th century only about 2% of immigrants were ever sent back to their countrys so the doors i guess would have been consierd to have been open back then. But we are in the 21st century and them doors are closed.[/quote]
 
[quote name='niceguyshawne']We would have plenty of resources for social services if we weren't too busy cutting taxes and protecting our oil interests in the Middle East.[/QUOTE]

Who cares, we shoudn't be offering social services to lawbreaking illegal aliens in any case.

And you've got it wrong: we'd not be running record deficits if we didn't spend as much money on dumb things (your dumb things and my dumb things may sometimes be at odds, such as on tax cuts).
 
[quote name='Kayden']Mexicans are actually the children of Mayan (?) slaves raped by the Spanish.[/QUOTE]

Aztec ;). Central Americans and such were Mayans raped by the Spaniards. I'm both (genetically, yay I'm 100% rape offspring decendent).
 
[quote name='crazytalkx']Aztec ;). Central Americans and such were Mayans raped by the Spaniards. I'm both (genetically, yay I'm 100% rape offspring decendent).[/quote]

Incan, Mayan, Aztec... you're all the same. Dead for 200 years. :whistle2:#

:lol:
 
Actually, a group of incans, the Q'ero, retreated to the mountains to flee the spanish. They're still around and live life virtually the same as they did during the Incan Empire.

Though the spanish killed a lot and raped a lot, but not nearly all. Especially when you get into more remote and rural areas, a lot of people don't have spanish blood.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Actually, a group of incans, the Q'ero, retreated to the mountains to flee the spanish. They're still around and live life virtually the same as they did during the Incan Empire.

Though the spanish killed a lot and raped a lot, but not nearly all. Especially when you get into more remote and rural areas, a lot of people don't have spanish blood.[/quote]

joke ([FONT=verdana,sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (j
omacr.gif
k)
n.
  1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
  2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
  3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
  4. Informal.
    1. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
    2. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.
 
[quote name='Kayden']joke ([FONT=verdana,sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (j
omacr.gif
k)
n.
  1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
  2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
  3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
  4. Informal.
    1. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
    2. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.
[/quote]
Ya, your post was kind of missing those key components.
 
[quote name='Kayden']joke ([FONT=verdana,sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (j
omacr.gif
k)
n.
  1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
  2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
  3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
  4. Informal.
    1. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
    2. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.
[/quote]

A. Guardian Owl is correct
B. Annoying you is amusement
 
Countries all around the world have immigration issues. We don't hear about it often if at all and why would we don't live there. But do some research on India for example, they had a huge immigration problem arguably larger than what is currently happening in the US. To sum it up their solution to the problem was a special ID# that made all immigrates legal or not pay taxes. Look at India now; it's considered one of the fastest growing countries in the world and gaining more and more political power every day.

More stable working families in the US, living a healthy life and paying taxes, can only strengthen our economy.
 
It happened centuries ago. It doesn't matter anymore and bringing it up adds nothing to the debate.

And holy shit this is old!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top