What exactly do you think those words mean?
And moreover what do you think ARTICLE IX in general means?
CMC fnord!
PS, I’ve made it a habit to avoid using controversial sites for cites, even if the cite is accurate, it opens the door to too many valid criticisms.
Meant to add,
By that logic we shouldn’t be speaking English either!
I’m not a US citizen, but I am a legal resident. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to wire money wherever I so desire?
Would you condone similar restrictions if they were placed by other countries on their resident American expatriates?
Me asking about the cite was simply an aside, and I’m quite aware of that treaty, as I linked to a reference to it myself. While I don’t think the treaty says what you think it does, even if it did, and was quite clear in doing so, I stand by the statement that I wouldn’t expect them to honor a treaty that we basically shit all over, as evidenced by my cite.
If we’re referring to specific land (say the Black Hills?) ceded to a given tribe by treaty (Treatyof Fort Laramie) with the US, YES!
While I concede the insurmountable difficulties giving all of North America back would bring, honoring the treaty obligations the US voluntarily entered into should be a given, not a question.
“Not all white men are Wasi’chu”
CMC fnord!
The site’s reference to The Black Hills War states that the in agreement that finally ended that campaign the Black Hills were ceded to the United States. That seems to have nullified the Fort Laramie Treaty.
From the cite to The Black Hills War contained in your cite to the Fort Laramie Treaty:
But that’s not the point. The point is that you can’t turn back the clock and entirely undo 30 or 40, or more, years of history merely by passing a law.
I agree entirely. In fact, I’d say you can’t turn back ten years of history merely by passing a law: that’s why I say the OP’s idea is as impractical and irrelevant as La Raza’s ideas, or the ideas of folks who want to return most of the US to Native American nations.
We deal with reality, not with theory; the law should, too.
Daniel
Sure we can. Isn’t that what Reagan Amnesty Bill did?
There are no particular language requirements for legal immigrants (nor native born citizens), and we produce those materials (not just in Spanish) because it helps us have a safe, educated populace. Without translators, the wheels of justice could not turn, the vote could not be as meaningful, and our country would be worse off.
Yeah, and I’m sure that treaty was voted on and accepted as part of a legitimate democratic process. In any case, Spanish is a characteristic of the American Republic.
Hey, I’m not the one that cares what language people speak.
That is laughable!! What foreign aid? The pittance you send is mostly for law enforcement supposedly to stop the illegal drugs that American society can’t seem to live without.
According to some statistics Mexicans make up approximately half of the undocumented immigrants in the US.
It appears you have some strong prejudices against Mexicans.
As I understand, it did exactly the opposite: it recognized current reality and laid waste to the imaginary world constructed by anti-immigration forces. Maybe you’d care to clarify in what way it dealt with an imaginary world instead of reality?
Daniel
What is your point?
. . . Hmmm?
This may or may not be true. However, this thread on a particularly contentious issue has, so far, remained civil, so let’s leave the personal observations about other posters out of the thread.
This goes for all the other post(er)s that have danced up to that line, as well.
No one (including CBEscapee) has violated any rule, here.
I am simply trying to keep this thread out of the Pit by establishing some suggestions of behavior that will minimize tensions and bad feelings.
[ /Moderating ]
The other illegal immigrants are very diverse and do not represent a large number of any one particular country. I welcome Indians, Germans, Asians, etc. because they don’t hang around on the corners of every town across the U.S. looking for jobs, clog up our hospitals and schools, and think that because a miniscule number of them pay taxes, that they are somehow deserving of what our taxes provide. Mexicans are the real problem when it comes to illegal immigrants. Aside from Mexicans, I can’t leave out the MS-13 gang which is another delightful hispanic group that is particularily violent and is bred below the border.
Because the family next door to my BIL is on welfare, both the mother and the father are undocumented. the children 9born in the USA) are American citizens. the family receives:
-section 8 housing subsidy
-welfare
-foodstamps
At least two of these are federal Welfare programs. that’s why I have the idea.
You know they are undocumented how? If there children are US citizens, then they are eligible for welfare benefits.
suezeekay made this statement which was quoted directly above mine:
“The subsidies for other illegals is not that significant. Obviously this would reduce foreign aid to Mexico to zero.”
I thought it was pretty obvious that my point was she is incorrectly singleing out Mexicans regardless of the statistics on the makeup of undocumented workers in the US.
Is that clear enough?
So you can tell from the way a person looks what nationality they are? Wanna bet?
Me neither!
Just to be clear the comment was in response to this,
and not directed to you. 
CMC fnord!