I don’t think either one is easy to define precisely in the context of pre-modern-nation-state societies, but I don’t think it makes sense to conflate them, even in that context.
Immigration is an individual effort on the part of individuals and families, for the sake of their own personal benefit. Invasion is a military enterprise aiming at benefits for the invading nation/group as a whole. The benefits to individual invaders, large numbers of whom are expected to die in the process, are obviously secondary.
There is no meaningful way in which Mexico can be said to be currently “invading” the US, even if significant numbers of Mexicans are attempting to move here. “Invasion” talk about immigration is just more right-wing propaganda.
Yet in North America the bulk coming over were not soldiers … they were individuals fleeing religious persecution and individuals seeking a better life. The Western expansion was supported by the army forcibly moving the natives out and killing them, but the settlers were there for personal benefit to themselves and their families.
Uh, that’s kind of a clue about the “invasion” aspect. The Mexican army is not crossing the border to displace Americans on behalf of Mexican immigrants.
(And yeah, that’s not to say that settler-colonialism, such as the US practiced in the American West, doesn’t have aspects of both immigration and invasion: it does. But current immigration into the US is not that.)
In case it is not clear: I completely agree. I am merely sharing the thought that using the same term that the Right uses suggests the conflation of entry against the extant population’s consent, and misses the key factor: the goal of colonization is to take over a region, replacing, killing, and/or subjugating any natives as necessary, in service of another “nation” (which applies to American Weatward expansion) THAT is more clearly ludicrous to all but the most extreme in the Right’s orbit. Of course there are quite a few in that most extreme orbit so it is not perfec.
Actually it was more the The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, where Mexico got rid of some troublesome and thought worthless territory and gained about $18 Million USD, (some 700M today), which shored up the nigh bankrupt Republic. The US also promised to stop comanche raids into Mexico, but that proved difficult.
California’s surrender and a what you could call a cease-fire was negotiated after US forces surrounded Los Angeles. The formal end to the whole war stretching all the way to Texas was the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Why do I need to? A case-by-case differentiation is perfectly fine. Anything else is just an invitation to playing semantic games and rules lawyering.
case in point:
Really? So this much-ballyhooed “militia” I’ve been told about wasn’t a thing? Every freeman in the early colonies was a trained[1] soldier, regardless of his other day job. Who do you think fought [2]in all those “Indian wars” before independence?
The colonization of North America was very much a military invasion from the get-go.
All colonization that wasn’t an uninhabited island has had its accompanying invasion[3]. At least, I can’t think of any that weren’t.
There is a moderately famous academic book by the historian Francis Jennings which was written in part as an exercise of revisionist reaction to the famous 19th American historian Francis Parkman, an exemplar of American exceptionalism. It’s called The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest, first part of a trilogy examining native-colonial relations in the northeast. It has come under it’s own share of criticism, both as a bit of a polemic and from the other side of things arguably not always recognizing the agency of the Native Americans on whose behalf he was pushing back at established narratives. It was published in 1978 and Jennings was understandably a man of his time and he was also angered by what he saw as a tradition of academic whitewashing in American historiography. Still an interesting book though, despite some flaws.
If you were an American Indian in colonial New England it would have been hard to not regard folks like the Puritans as violent invaders.
The definition of “military” has been real clear cut in some centuries and not so clear in others. Likewise “immigrate” and “emigrate”. Although as @Alessan wisely said, getting hung up on the terminology is usually just a way to whitewash ugly realities.
From the POV of the Native Americans in what’s now the US northeast, they were certainly suffering an influx of unwelcome people who were armed and intended to stay regardless of the locals’ wishes. Rather few of whom, at first, were in any way representing the government of the country they had departed from.
So arguably an invasion, but not exactly a military one, as opposed to an armed rabble one.
Now fifty or 150 years later the British military proper actually started to show up. And somewhere along the way the settlers formed their own militias. Which later, with the founding of the USA, morphed into the Continental Army, a legit government-led military force.
Without reading it, I think that unlimited immigration from all poor countries to one particular rich one, where migrants get automatic work permits without a time limit, would quickly result in a right wing takeover in the rich country, and net out to a disaster for migrants.
Of course, we do not really mean unlimited, because the surplus number of current airliner seats would be the limiting factor, as well as the cost of the tickets. But even with those limits, I still am sure that the right wing takeover would come within a year or two.
Has anyone in the thread mentioned David Frum’s maxim that “If Liberals Won’t Enforce Borders, Fascists Will.” I’m sure that is correct.
If human nature changed, so there wasn’t a political problem, sure, open borders sounds like good economics.
Is that really any different than here though? It’s a common pattern for immigrants to cluster in communities of their own countrymen, speak their own language, eat their own food, etc… just somewhere else. Germans did it here in the US all over the place, with little German speaking communities in various places. Vietnamese immigrants did it in Texas in the 70s and 80s.
The usual pattern is that the original immigrants speak their native language, and some English. Their kids typically are bilingual, and their kids are often only/primarily English speakers who only have a toe in the ethnic community.
Does this not happen in European countries? How much of that is due to racism/cultural resistance on the part of Europeans who don’t let them assimilate, as they aren’t and never will be , no matter how long they live there.
This article more or less describes the phenomenon.
You are correct, Europe is often far less welcoming than the USA for immigrants. While immigrants to the USA often find themselves working menial jobs, those immigrating to European countries often find themselves locked out of the market altogether. Their children have a hard time assimilating as well compare to their counterparts in the US.
In contrast, the United States as a “nation of immigrants” is part of our identity. Even people who have been here for generations often think of themselves as part German, Chinese, English, etc.
Tell that to Milo Yiannopoulos (unless Trump is about to pardon him).
As for the immigration context, would-be immigrants are properly asked, by U.S. consular staff, to show the results of a local criminal background check. This can be obtained in almost all countries, including most considered third world. I don’t think that robbers are necessarily evil people overall, but it is reasonable to deny them a visa.