Do you feel the "Native American" response to contemporary illegal immigration is irrelevant or very relevant?

Question

When a person who is against illegal immigration voices their opinion there is a good chance someone will bring up the Native American issue that occurred centuries ago by Europeans coming to the western world. My question to you is: Do you think this is relevant or irrelevant in terms of contemporary illegal immigration and the issue of assimilation? Please give reasons for why you think this.

I would like to clear somethings up. First of all, please don't reply if you're going to say none sense. If you are, for example, against illegal immigration and feel the Native American excuse is asinine then give a reason. If you are pro-illegal immigration and feel the excuse makes sense then say so.

Also, I feel many here are assuming I'm an illegal immigrant. I'm not. I'm actually against illegal immigration, but this is the #1 response given to those who are against illegal immigration. Therefore, I'd like to hear "intelligent (not asinine)" responses from both sides. Of the first five posts, the only one worth reading is Guerrilla M.

Edit: Some of you have edited your posts and made them more argumentative. Thanks for that. I take back what I said about the first five posts.

Answer 1

Irrelevant. The Indians had tribes all over the place. No one tribe ruled. Who would tell us it was okay?

The reality is we came as conquerors for the most part. If you make the argument that we did not then I have one word for you .. Thanksgiving.. the Indians fed us..

Also, don't forget the "Indians" migrated here as well.

The main thing is, that was ages ago. We are now the owners and we now have laws. Without laws you have chaos.

Also, their ancestors " conquered" the countries they are coming from as well!!

Answer 2

And why is the humanitarian aspect relevant because you say so? Values are individually and collectively determined. Forming an opinion and making a decision involve weighing different factors, valuing some over others. As for the "all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights," keepn in mind that the men who wrote those famous words over 200 years ago either owned slaves themselves or didn't value the lives of African-Americans enough to fight for the abolition of slavery in the new nation. White women weren't property, but they weren't franchised citizens, either. To understand the quoted excerpt better, it needs to be put back in full context: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." As an atheist, I do not recognize any Creator and therefore do not recognize any God-given rights. I recognize only rights specifically enumerated by law. The last sentence of this passage makes clear that this text replaces the divine powers of the English monarch, who is also head of the Church of England, with an elected government. If our government wishes to reform our immigration laws, it should seek not divine counsel but the consent of the governed. EDIT: I wonder if Bruce really was a Border Patrol agent and tax auditor. He seems unfamiliar with a judge's discretion to release detainees up for deportation with a Withholding from Removal and makes the hardnosed IRS seem like "reasonable" fellows who will gladly forgo the opportunity to bring in badly needed revenues by waiving penalties for "good excuses."

Answer 3

You act as if this was something that occurred centuries ago. It wasn't. Did we just forget the injustices that occurred to the slaves? Is that irrelevant in today's world? Is it much different?
Sorry but we use the past to remind ourselves of our errors. To say they just had tribes all over the place and were irrelevant is stupid. They had central governments. They had their land completely stolen from them, their belongings stripped from them, and sometimes their lives. The people who say it was land for the taking are clueless as to what occurred. My people were rounded up in the Georgia/Alabama area and marched with only the clothing on their backs all the way to Oklahoma. Among them 4,000 died. Do you think it is irrelevant? I don't! IT is relevant and realistic as to the way we treat those who come after us. Cherokee still view everyone who has come as illegal so what is the difference? Did the Europeans respect the Indian tribes? I think not! so with what right do they scream at other native people? The truth of the matter is that Hispanics are all mixed breed tribes from this continent. Oh and for the assinine comment about Indians migrating! That happened more than 30,000 years ago. Europeans came less than 400 years ago and we only became a country 231 years ago. Hell, Oklahoma didn't become a state until the 1900's. Learn from the past. You forget it then you are destined to repeat it.
To say that they send most of their money home is ridiculous too. They still must pay all of the things we pay for plus send money home. I send money to my mother in law in her native country and if I didn't she would be here with us. I am not an immigrant and I work for my money so what I do with it is none of your business. I work, pay taxes, and everything you do.
In fact the SS administration has more than 500 billion dollars in suspense accounts because this is what illegal immigrants have paid into the SS through taxes alone. So it is idiotic to think that any immigrant legal or illegal does not pay tax. If they pay rent, buy food, clothes, or pay electricity they pay tax as well. If they buy a car, pay for gas and so on they pay for tax. Tax is in everything you purchase and the purchasing power of Hispanics is huge. If you removed 12 million people tomorrow you would also remove another 6-7 million US citizens and legal immigrants that are part of those families that are mixed status families. If this country were to lose that amount of people tomorrow it would bankrupt itself.

Answer 4

I agree totally with the first answer you got here. I feel it is irrelevant. Since time began, countries have invaded and tried to conquer others. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost. However, many do feel the huge number of illegals in the country now amount to an invasion and we have the right to fight off that invasion. Maybe we'll win, maybe we'll lose. The Indians lost, we won. Maybe the Mexicans will win, but I hope not. I am all for immigration, just not illegal immigration. To me, illegal immigration is an act of hostility towards our country, especially when it is endorsed by the governments and citizens of the countries of the invaders.

Answer 5

I am a NATIVE AMERICAN. I just would like to say that most natives don't like it when we are called "INDIANS". I do feel that what happened in the past doesn't matter now because it is a new time and new issues. Sure, what happened in the past is bad but most people are just trying to survive in today's world.

Answer 6

No, it's a smart-assed talking point. If we never move past history, we get nowhere. That's history. It's a comment to stop intelligent debate.

NonAmericans and ethnic Americans use the same talking point, as well as slavery, to put down present-day Americans, yet there's not a culture, race or country on this planet that has a perfect history. It's just hate and ignorance.

Answer 7

I think the argument is irrelevant as the Mexican immigrants who come here illegally are not bettering our country in a financial sense. They primarily send the money they make home thus, weakening the U.S. economy. The illegal immigrants who are coming here are also failing to adopt our language and customs- the very ones that make up our national identity. Worst of all, the majority of our country's prison population are illegal hispanic immigrants. I am looking at the facts here, and as a man who is one-quarter Sioux, I feel that I'm not totally out of line either.

Answer 8

Of course it's relevant! Why would it be OK for all the White people to come here & round up the Native Americans & herd them off like cattle down the Trail of Tears to reservations where they still live today & not expect any repercussions from that?! They are human beings & we treated them as animals. Yes, they fought us just as we are now trying to fight against the Hispanics that we see as taking over "our" country. Of course they fought us because we were threatening their way of life. We refused to "adapt" to their ways. Hmmmm...funny, isn't that what all the whites are complaining about these days? We don't speak Cherokee do we? Or Lakota? No. We made the natives of this land adapt to us as we killed them & took over & ravaged their land! Is THAT relevant? I think it most certainly is in God's eyes! We haven't been here that long, folks. We don't "own" this land. All land belongs to God. Those who are here are only here by the grace & mercy of God Almighty. That includes the white illegal alien who came over on a boat a couple hundred years ago or the brown illegal alien who risks his very life walking hundreds of miles in the pursuit of a better life for himself & his family today. His dream is no different than that of our own ancestors. He's just doing it in a less violent way. Bottom line is what goes around comes around, you reap what you so....all those famous cliches. There's a REASON they are so famous. They are true. Whites need to stop being so self-righteous and accept that change is not coming....it's here.

Answer 9

it's irrelevant today
don't forget you hear we stole land from Mexico too?
illegal Aliens are out to justify illegal immigration!!!

Answer 10

i am for the illegals..........but in my opinion and honestly....... i think it is history it is past ......but we have learned from the way of slave dealings it worked there and it might work here also ........oh_hell