If we'd have had the same immigration laws we got now since the mayflower first came here, what'd had happened

Question

considering that most of the immigrants that first came here were indeed poor.

Critter: Duh !!! thats the question !!

JD: Not an answer, what would had happened, thats the question, learn how to read

Kris B: There were laws, but not immigration laws.

Remmo16: Lets suppose that england stablished the immigration laws and not the indians.

Ruby: You couldnt come up with a better answer than that ?

lordkelvin: Theres no such thing as a dumb question, cause if you know something doesnt mean everybody knows it, those that dont ask never get out of ignorance land. Regarding your answer not all immigrants that came here were religious, and rich people dont immigrate, because they're fine were they are. Of course Im talking about england stablishing the immigration laws, the indians were not smart enough to do that. and my point is that by todays standars alll your grandparents would had been considered illegals.

volleyballchick: Can you read the question again, IF WE'D HAVE HAD THE SAME IMMIGRATIONS LAWS WE GOT NOW. lets say they did have a few requirements, they were absolutely easy to meet.

If yall cant answer a what if question then move to the next question, so simple.

Answer 1

Except we needed people for a while, and immigration laws welcoming people served that need. Of course there were no government subsidized benefits by then. By the time we had those, we had immigration limits.

We need immigration laws that serve our current need, now, and that need is different. Cumulative impacts of people over the years does make a difference.

You can't have both a welfare state and unlimited immigration.

Answer 2

Why is it that you all that are pro illegal generalize that all of the illegal immigrants are POOR?

To answer your question: The poor that came over then would not have the same monitary demand due to the value of the $$ back then in relation to now. Not to mention, there was no money in the "New World" back then, so the demand wasn't there.

Now, to address your issue with the "poor" that came over: They had to go through a "legal" process. Do you think they just hopped on ships and sailed? They had permission from their government to come over here. And since at that time, there was no "government" here to give permission, and at the time, the Native Americans were not "territorial" in the sense of "this is our land" (they moved with the wild life for hunting purposes), they allowed others to move into the country because there was more than enough land for everyone (back then - who knew?).

So in response to your question, they did it legally. Sorry to blow up your "point" you were going to make. Research, research, research. . . that is the key to winning an argument.

There is an old saying: "IF a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his @$$ when he leaps" - asking a "what if" question isn't really doing an argument. Because ANYTHING is possible with a "what if".

If we had the same immigration laws as now, then I think they might be turned away. But what is the point? They didn't and they weren't turned away. So what? Are you trying to compare the situations? Are the illegal immigrants coming into the country now making their way by farming land that previously was not inhabited? Are they trading to put furs on the kids for winter? Are they eating the animals they killed on the range? NO. They are coming over here, and using a system of welfare and public assistance that they really have no right to. The people off the Mayflower didn't have that - so again, how can you compare the two?

So get off your high horse - all anyone is asking is the LAW be followed! Why do poor have the right to break the law? Why do you think that breaking a law because you are "poor" is better? If a person steals your car because they are poor, do you think they should go to jail? Are you rich enough to give them your car, and buy another? I highly doubt it. But it is the same thing - they are breaking laws and excusing it by saying "I can't afford to go through it legally, so I have to break the law". Why are they OWED citizen rights? Why do we OWE them the right to come here and use the things that are here for OUR citizens? How is that really fair to the people that are citizens here, some of them going through things the legal way? Why do they get a "free pass"? Take your superiority and shove it. I don't buy your attitude, or your reasoning. It's irrelavent. In a court of law, you can't plead "I'm poor and can't afford to follow the law" as a reason for your freedom.

Answer 3

Dumb question... in the first place many of the original settlers came here to escape religious persecution, not because they were poor. Next it would have been England that would have set any immigration laws, because this was their colony. And finely what is your dumbass point. Do you think that the whole planet should be able to move here?

Answer 4

Consider This Genious

The NATIVES Were Generous Enough To Welcome
And The POOR COLONISTS Came In HUGE NUMBERS
Up To 20 Million
And CONQUERED The NATION
One State At A Time
Starting With 13

WE THE PEOPLE Wrote That Story
You THINK Were Gonna Fall For It??
LOLOL

Thats OUR ORIGINAL GAMEPLAY
You Cant Play That Play

Cause If You Do
WE KNOW The DEFENSE
So BRING IT ON

RECONQUISTA Is A Fantasy


This Land Is OUR LAND


Hut One

Answer 5

Well, if there weren't any "immigration" laws, we would have become a nation of criminals - anybody could have come without sponsorship and we would have become the armpit of the world because other countries would have encouraged their criminals to go here, probably arranged for boats. You need rules and the only people worth having are the ones who follow them.

Happy now Jordan? You should have known what I meant given your question though.

Answer 6

You mean if the Indians actually had a government and had laws and one of those laws actually was related to immigration? If the Indians were that smart then my guess would be that the early explorers would have reported that and then traded openly with the Indians and not sent settlers on the Mayflower.

Answer 7

Post this under "Society and Culture"->mythology and folklore--maybe they can give you an answer. Is there a category for "what if's"?

What if..Europeans never reached the New World and Natives continued to civilize, build, invent,etc?

What if...prehisoric man never discovered fire?

What if...the Wright Brothers(nor anyone else) had never made a bicycle or an airplane?

You could 'what if' from now 'til doomsday, it won't change history. It is what it is.

Answer 8

It is a shame that people are so against immigrants. They are willing to do a lot of jobs most peole aren't willing to do, and often, for less money.

I think sometimes we forget that at one point or another, we were all immigrants or descendants of immigrants.

I think there are a lot of people who just want someone to blame for the problems in our society, and someone who isn't an "official member" is a good candidate.

Answer 9

Yes, the first European mayflowers inmigrants decimated the Native peoples.But remember ,the Natives were friendly , offer the whites ,turkey and lodging , in return they were given blankets filled with smallpox from sick people, and almost exterminated, we dont have that problem ,now is still the same ,the whites against the darks!

Answer 10

There were no laws then!!