English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

to work and live on their lands, I believe they called it a treaty

2006-07-23 06:15:24 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Immigration

9 answers

They didn't give permission to have all of their rights taken away though. Did you know that it was only 80 years ago before they received the right to vote? By that time even African-Americans and women could vote.

2006-07-23 06:32:24 · answer #1 · answered by Mariposa 7 · 4 1

ARE YOU F****** KIDDING ME?

AMNESTY: A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses.

TREATY: A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.

Now be an Einstein and answer this question for yourself.

Mercy! I think you may need further assistance. A pardon is not in any way an agreement. Amnesty didn't exist on this soil during the time you speak of. Treaties were made for peace and commerce between enemies for the sake of mutual survival. Amnesty is nothing more than a pardon for criminals, which by the way the "Indians" would have never ever allowed.

2006-07-23 14:15:17 · answer #2 · answered by warriorbabe 2 · 0 0

Yep, and the indians lost every war they fought against the new settlers. Is that what we're gearing up for, here, another war with the indians? The indians ALSO lost every war they fought with Spain, who settled Mexico and well into California.

Welcome to the 21st century. The world is much smaller now.
And no, we can't afford more reparations payments, not with 8+trillion in red ink on the books. So, that means, it's time to get a JOB. And, for Mexico, that means it's time to ramp up their economy to the point where it'll support ALL their citizens.
And, it means it's time for a lot of mexicans to go home and help fix up their own country so that their future looks a lot brighter than it does right now.

Limbaugh once said 'tough love', 2 smartest words the man ever said, those were from his pre-pills days. America has to show Mexico some of that 'tough love' also to get them on the path to independence and self-sufficiency. What kind of Mexico would you rather see/have as a neighbor, one that's crime-ridden, plagued by drugs and poverty, or a Mexico that can fully live up to/live with its' rich heritage and actually 'carry the mail'?

If you watch the news, you see they've got allll kinda problems there, they haven't even figured out who the next prez will be.

If you like the United States, look to study the positive aspects of its' history, and how our government works. Corporations don't run all of it, 'cause the People won't let em. That's where it gets into that 'integrity' thing, and Mexico could stand to learn a lot from that. A LOT. Their leaders have to start taking personal responsibility for the welfare and the future of their people, instead of just going 'mea culpa' and watching half of their country move north. That's the heart/root of this problem, is that they don't have their act together.

***** all you want about america, but truth be known, Mexico would have dried up and blown away YEARS ago had it not been for decades of steal-me-blind generosity. I think we've really tried, and in return we get belligerency, rampant drug trade, degeneration of our communities, and and and. You may think that illegal immigration is this wonderful thing, but there've been quite a few people on this board before you that would heartily disagree and argue that point with you, with sordid details.

My stand is thus: There's no band-aid big enough to cover systemic dysfunction in Mexico. The la raza crowd, were they really out to advance the cause of hispanics, would be working double-overtime to get Mexico standing on its' own two feet, and able to sustain and support and employ and house and educate their people, instead of trying to get the United States to do it FOR them....nuff said.

2006-07-23 13:28:18 · answer #3 · answered by gokart121 6 · 0 0

We learn from their mistakes.

Or do you think that turned out to be a good deal for them?

We have given amnesty several times. It can't be done with the huge number here without very careful controls and fixing of the system to actually LIMIT and reduce the number coming. Our services are failing. We pay to educate the poor from other countries at the expense of a decent education for our own children. You can't have both subsidized services and unlimited immigration.

The fact that the people who came seem to hate us doesn't make the idea any more popular, by the way.

2006-07-23 13:22:05 · answer #4 · answered by DAR 7 · 0 0

Just remember they"American Indians" took lands form other when they arrived here!

2006-07-23 13:19:32 · answer #5 · answered by Pobept 6 · 0 0

Yes they did as a matter of fact. All of their differences were solved in court, and that's why they have the casinos and everything else.

Good to learn something new, huh?

2006-07-23 13:19:21 · answer #6 · answered by yars232c 6 · 0 0

YES THEY DID.....But we call it a treaty....In this country perception is reality.

But the truth is, they were invaders, with insidious plans....

2006-07-23 13:20:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

When are you going to get some good history books-are do you like being-ill informed?

2006-07-23 13:59:08 · answer #8 · answered by *** The Earth has Hadenough*** 7 · 0 0

ok under your logic how did that work out for them. do really think they want to do it again ? ahh yeah next question

2006-07-23 13:21:07 · answer #9 · answered by hayleylov 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers