This pitting is not about immigrants or protests or anything except for the utter idiocy of Tom Tancredo’s statement quoted above. This is so fucking representative of the attitude mainstream America takes towards our history: “Columbus found America, then Squanto helped us out, and we were kind of mean to the Indians, but everything turned out ok because we freed the slaves so that Washington Carver could invent peanut butter! USA!!!”
Fuck this shit-for-brains congressman. Fuck his stupid fucking comment. And don’t tell me I’m going off too much on one little quote: saying America has a “tradition of legal immigration” is a blatant LIE and almost the completely opposite of the truth.
Sure, we’ve always has restrictions for silly things like tuberculosis, malaria, and bubonic plague, but yeah, America’s immigration history has been pretty open.
Hmm… I took a course on the history of US immigration, and from what I remember (it’s been a while!) most of our major immigrations (Mexico often being a notable exception) were legal. The waves of European immigration were nearly all legal, and (at least at first) the 19th century Asian immigrations were also legal (at least at first; eventually laws like this came along. We sure were more honest about naming legislation then, weren’t we?)
Far be it from me to question a rant against ignorance, but do you have any numbers to back up your claims? It would be interesting to compare (maybe by decade) the ratio of legal to illegal immigrants throughout our history.
In any case, a claim that we have a “tradition of legal immigration” doesn’t seem that outrageous to me. Unless you claim that the initial settlers were violating some applicable laws when they settled, which is obviously more of an emotional ploy then a factual argument.
This is precisely what I’m talking about, and I don’t see how it’s an emotional ploy, other than the fact that it’s uncozy. Indian tribes may not have had written laws, but I’m sure if they did one of them would be “Don’t kill, rape, and displace us”.
Amnesty is an affront to American tradition, Congressman Tancredo? I wonder what Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez thinks of that. Given that he quite possibly wouldn’t be an American citizen today without the amnesty afforded by the Cuban Adjustment Act in 1966.
Well, when he said “We” he was probably speaking as a representative of the US, which didn’t exist when the initial settlers immigrated. Therefore, it’s nonsense to call that illegal immigration into the US, given that the US and its laws did not exist then.
Also…
I don’t consider murder, rape, and theft to be a part of immigration laws–do you?
Sorry, but I don’t buy this. First of all, the colonial settlers are part of the US’ “tradition”, and I’m sure Tancredo would agree with me on that point. Second of all, I think the fact that a country established itself on land intentionally stolen from other people within the preceding few centuries does indeed tarnish its claims to ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ immigration. Also, it is my interpretation that Tancredo is invoking not only legality, but also, in conunction, moral rightness. I don’t think he would be quick to say that a resistance worker in 1930s Germany was an illegal criminal, though it might be technically true.
If you are going to go by the precise, exact, technical definition of legality, it would not be possible for any country not to have a tradition of legal immigration-- legality confirms itself. But I do not think Tancredo was using this strict definition, as politicians usually don’t. When people refer to legality in this sense, they usually refer to something that is both legal and right.
No, I don’t; not strictly. But I do consider a country’s claims to legality valid partly based on the means that it acquired its own authority to make such proclamations.
You must have a very short list of nations who can live up to your standards. It’s not like the Native Americans were all living in paradise before those evil Europeans came. They fought among themselves, enslaved one another, and certainly drove rivals from their land. So by your standards I don’t suppose they had much authority to keep the Spanish out of their land.
When a politician from the Cherokee Nation starts talking about how their country has never fought in a war, we can talk about that, but it’s irrelevant to this conversation in a number of ways because we’re talking about the US government, not native governments, and we’re talking about one specific maliciously ignorant mistruth that a politician stated, not dragging out a litany of every bad thing that every people has ever done.
Only you aren’t talking about the US government, which did not exist when the first colonists came over.
There was no US when the colonists came over, and you specifically mention them, then go on to say that what you’re talking about is the US Gov’t… which isn’t what you’re talking about. I’m not sure you even know what you’re talking about… but you sure as mad as hell about it. Let us know when you can see (and think) straight, will ya?
By your definition, the US doesn’t have the moral authority to place any legal restrictions on any immigration. Or restrictions against an invading people who want to “rape , kill, or displace us”. The fact is the US government does have a reputation of welcoming legal immigrants with open arms. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses… " and all of that. It does not have a tradition of welcoming illegal immigrants. Those early settlers were not illegal to the US however many Native American “laws” were broken. I think Tancredo was saying that welcoming illegal immigrants hurts whatever tradition the US has towards its immigration. It is stating that we will welcome you even if you do not obey our rules to get here.
I’ve got proof that my great-grandfather came here legally. I’ve seen his naturalization papers and other related documentation. The rest of my family came to the US before there were immigration laws. Remember, there were no restrictions on immigration before 1875.
I think all of my ancestors have been here since the early to mid 19th century, I don’t even remember most of their names much less have any legal documents.
As for the present problem, tough call… they came here illegally, should we give them a chance for citizenship? For some, I’d say yes… but for others, I’d say no. All in all, I say good luck to Congress to get something worked out.
The majority of Americans who settled in this country would not be able to come here under current immigration laws, which are far more draconian. Many of them came here when there were hardly any laws restricting immigration. I can buy claims based on technicalities that say previous immigrants were legal and today’s are not, because this is certainly true. Yet the behaviour of today’s immigrants compared to previous immigrants is the same. In essence, they are just wandering in without restriction (either because there were no restrictions or because they are ignoring the restrictions).
I believe that in order for Tancredo to be consistent, he would need to take the position that there should be very few limitations on immigration. That would be the position most consistent with the situation he considers “America’s tradition of legal immigration”. Otherwise, he is just another dude with a “hey, I got my own” attitude, who is trying to have his cake and eat it too.