Mandatory Chant: "Our Forefathers Were Illegal Immigrants" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Mandatory Chant: "Our Forefathers Were Illegal Immigrants"


maxsnafu
10-05-2012, 13:09
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/government-training-included-exercise-in-which-employees-were-told-to-chant-our-forefathers-were-illegal-immigrants?f=must_reads

"Government training , included exercise in which employees were told to chant 'our forefathers were illegal immigrants.'"

countrygun
10-05-2012, 13:30
OK, so some of my ancestors had an "open door" policy. It was a mistake. Everybody outta the pool and GTFO.

:tongueout:

Paul7
10-05-2012, 13:39
When the first English colonists came to North America, they were coming from one part of English territory to another, so they were NOT illegal immigrants. Same thing here in NM, there are hundreds of thousands of descendants of Spanish settlers, who came from Spain or South American Spanish territory to what is now NM Spanish territory.

Beware Owner
10-05-2012, 13:39
They didn't use the term illegal immigrant back then, but...

JBnTX
10-05-2012, 13:43
Their forefathers were legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants.
Too many people get the terms mixed.

This country was built by legal immigrants.
All the illegal immigrants have ever done is take from this country and never give anything back.

JFrame
10-05-2012, 13:44
Well, this is certainly moral relativism taken to a ridiculous extreme...


.

LASTRESORT20
10-05-2012, 13:47
And then our Forefathers made laws for "their" new home.

Beware Owner
10-05-2012, 13:51
When the first English colonists came to North America, they were coming from one part of English territory to another, so they were NOT illegal immigrants. Same thing here in NM, there are hundreds of thousands of descendants of Spanish settlers, who came from Spain or South American Spanish territory to what is now NM Spanish territory.

This territory didn't belong to the colonists, it wasn't given to them...

Their forefathers were legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants.
Too many people get the terms mixed.

This country was built by legal immigrants.
All the illegal immigrants have ever done is take from this country and never give anything back.

REally? Where did they apply for their visas?

oldman11
10-05-2012, 13:56
When the first English colonists came to North America, they were coming from one part of English territory to another, so they were NOT illegal immigrants. Same thing here in NM, there are hundreds of thousands of descendants of Spanish settlers, who came from Spain or South American Spanish territory to what is now NM Spanish territory.
BINGO! You got it right. The same goes for Texas.

ModGlock17
10-05-2012, 13:58
Were you even legal, back in, say Italy ?

Did your original ancestors had legal papers to move to the land now called Italy?

LOL.

countrygun
10-05-2012, 13:58
This territory didn't belong to the colonists, it wasn't given to them...



REally? Where did they apply for their visas?


Do you understand the concept of "Legal"?


There wasn't an existing law in North America that made migration "Illegal" hence the could not have been doing anything illegal.

Beware Owner
10-05-2012, 14:02
Do you understand the concept of "Legal"?


There wasn't an existing law in North America that made migration "Illegal" hence the could not have been doing anything illegal.

You don't need a law to tell someone what belongs to them...

JBnTX
10-05-2012, 14:13
REally? Where did they apply for their visas?


Visas were not required. The original immigrants broke no laws when they came to America.

Unlike the current crop of illegal trespassers who do break the law when they enter this country illegally.

There's a big difference.

..

Beware Owner
10-05-2012, 14:22
Visas were not required. The original immigrants broke no laws when they came to America.

Unlike the current crop of illegal trespassers who do break the law when they enter this country illegally.

There's a big difference.

..

They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

countrygun
10-05-2012, 14:32
You don't need a law to tell someone what belongs to them...

Ignorance is not your friend.

The Natives at the time did not have a concept of "possesion" as we know it. Their "territory" was limited to what they were standing on basically. Personal possesions were also shared.

Quit looking at history through the glasses of today's values/morals/concepts.

mj9mm
10-05-2012, 14:40
well i think the USDA should be rebuilt from the ground up, with out the progressive liberalism part

G17Jake
10-05-2012, 15:44
They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

Who did it belong to?

Paul7
10-05-2012, 15:48
They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

Where was the Indian's titles to the land? They were constantly fighting each other for possession, and in the white man ran into a superior opponent. If you disagree, perhaps you could give your house lot back to the Indians.

PawDog
10-05-2012, 18:28
They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

And the natives here when the colonists arrived also migrated here from other locations, many proven to be from Asia. Were they illegal also? :upeyes:

rgregoryb
10-05-2012, 19:03
conquerors is more like it, and the winners write the history...........

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 19:19
conquerors is more like it, and the winners write the history...........

So, the choice is to support the defenders of the Alamo, or the la Raza crowd.

Fork 'em sideways.

First, create an "I used to be an illegal alien" ID card that is verifiable over the internet. Make it a felony to assist an unidentified illegal in obtaining fraudulent documentation, punishable by $5000 and 5 years in jail per count.

Then allow 1 year for all illegals to get theirs. While educating everyone on what is to come.

After 1 year, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by 1 year in jail and $1000, to be, or to hire an illegal without the ID card.

After 18 months, it's a felony, punishable by 5 years in jail, or $50,000 fine for being an illegal, or hiring one without the ID card. Offer a $1000 dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of any duly identified illegals. $1500 per Illegal captured if the finder happens to be otherwise unemployed (putting Americans back to work) We have to watch spending, so cap it at say..... $100,000 per year per household.

After 2 years, all social services (food stamps, housing, public education etc) stop for all illegals & their non US citizen family members without the ID card. Schools found to have illegal aliens enrolled are fined $500 for each week that an illegal alien attended, per student. All Illegals found, regardless of how, without the ID card are deported.

We then get to decide how many we want to allow to stay, and how many should go. We also get to decide, on whatever criteria we'd like, who stays and who goes. I'm for automatically deporting everyone with more than two arrests for non-immigration misdemeanor offenses. Any convictions of any felony should get them an automatic ticket home.

We don't want to break up any families, so anchor babies must be considered. If it is decided that one or both parents must be deported, then the parents go, period, end of discussion on that point. The child will be allowed to go with his/her parents, or they can stay in the USA at the parents expense if suitable supervision can be arranged.

Since we will finally have access to demographics on this hidden culture, we can decide how much we should give them in the form of social services. How many non-working family members per worker will be allowed. What the illegal immigrant minimum wage should be. How much they will pay in taxes & If there should be limits on their stay.



There will be crooks among them, there will also be high quality people. We should consider a path to permanent resident alien (non-voting) status for the top performers based on whatever criteria we choose.


If you remove the financial benefits on both the supply and demand sides of the equation, and positively ID all of them, you can start to manage the population.

QNman
10-05-2012, 19:25
And then our Forefathers made laws for "their" new home.

Speak for yourself. My forefathers were here before the Europeans.

QNman
10-05-2012, 19:27
Do you understand the concept of "Legal"?


There wasn't an existing law in North America that made migration "Illegal" hence the could not have been doing anything illegal.

Taking my tongue out of my cheek (and may my forefathers forgive me), this really is the salient point. The land was not wholly owned by native Americans, and those that arrived did so without it being either legal or illegal.

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 19:30
Taking my tongue out of my cheek (and may my forefathers forgive me), this really is the salient point. The land was not wholly owned by native Americans, and those that arrived did so without it being either legal or illegal.

To the victors go the spoils. You don't have to like it, but that is simply the way it is.

All of that happened decades before the birth of my great grandfather. I can't fix that and have no feeling of responsibility for it. This land is ours today. Deal with it.

JFrame
10-05-2012, 19:32
Let's talk about the Muslims returning the Middle East and Near Asia to the Babylonians, Assyrians, Sumerians, etc.


.

countrygun
10-05-2012, 19:33
Taking my tongue out of my cheek (and may my forefathers forgive me), this really is the salient point. The land was not wholly owned by native Americans, and those that arrived did so without it being either legal or illegal.

Sometimes it is difficult to not have a certain reaction on behalf of my ancestors, but, the truth is for my family, once they learned about the White man's "Sears and Roebuck" catalog, and the fact that it had pictures AND you could use it as a new thing called "Toilet paper" it was all over, as they rushed towards oil lamps and indoor plumbing.

QNman
10-05-2012, 19:37
To the victors go the spoils. You don't have to like it, but that is simply the way it is.

All of that happened decades before the birth of my great grandfather. I can't fix that and have no feeling of responsibility for it. This land is ours today. Deal with it.

Read my post again, my friend. I am an American first and foremost. My forefathers were what they were, just as yours were. I'm proud of it, but I don't pretend anyone owes me anything because of it.

QNman
10-05-2012, 19:38
Sometimes it is difficult to not have a certain reaction on behalf of my ancestors, but, the truth is for my family, once they learned about the White man's "Sears and Roebuck" catalog, and the fact that it had pictures AND you could use it as a new thing called "Toilet paper" it was all over, as they rushed towards oil lamps and indoor plumbing.

:rofl:

I hear you, brother.

rgregoryb
10-05-2012, 19:44
So, the choice is to support the defenders of the Alamo, or the la Raza crowd.

Fork 'em sideways.

I'm sayin we won it fair and square..............

QNman
10-05-2012, 19:46
I'm sayin we won it fair and square..............

Yeah, Doc seems defensive tonight. Must have had to talk to (e.g. listen to) a Democratic patient today.

(:tongueout:)

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 19:57
Read my post again, my friend. I am an American first and foremost. My forefathers were what they were, just as yours were. I'm proud of it, but I don't pretend anyone owes me anything because of it.

Don't worry, we are cool.

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 19:58
Yeah, Doc seems defensive tonight. Must have had to talk to (e.g. listen to) a Democratic patient today.

(:tongueout:)

More than one brother. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 20:02
I'm sayin we won it fair and square..............

Yup. What happened happened. Long before my great grandfather came onto the scene. No Guilt here.

engineer151515
10-05-2012, 20:02
Do you understand the concept of "Legal"?


There wasn't an existing law in North America that made migration "Illegal" hence the could not have been doing anything illegal.

Obviously he does not.

At best, he confuses morality with legality. A common mistake.

countrygun
10-05-2012, 20:06
Obviously he does not.

At best, he confuses morality with legality. A common mistake.

Well it's better than getting into a debate with someone who says "Don't try to legislate morality" :upeyes: and won't admit that most of man's basic laws are legislated morality.

QNman
10-05-2012, 20:12
Don't worry, we are cool.

More than one brother. :wavey:

:cheers:

QNman
10-05-2012, 21:18
Don't worry, we are cool.

I saw a car today in Illinois. It made me thing of you. It had a Texas plate, and a sticker that said "Combat Medic".

janice6
10-05-2012, 22:00
I’m tired of hearing how this country was taken from the original “owners”.

The following is not a Politically Correct statement. It is, however, the real world. If you are offended, tell someone else. This is how our wonderful world works.

Whether you like it or not, the historical reality is that we only occupy what we can keep others from taking away from us.

This country was never taken from the original owners. No one owns a country. They occupy it until someone stronger takes it from them. If you don’t think so, consider disbanding the military and see how long this government/country lasts. You might even consider permitting unlimited immigration, and see how the results are just the same as losing a war of occupation.

This country was taken from the previous occupiers. Make no mistake. They had no central organized government, were nomadic, relatively sparse in numbers, with limited offensive/defensive capabilities. Thus they lost it due to weakness.

This country was taken, for the most part, by a war of occupation. The war was fought by an occupying force, in numbers that overwhelmed the original inhabitants. These invaders had superior numbers and force. There was no question they “Won”this country by occupation. In the concept of the times, “To the victor belong the spoils”.

We have always been in the same position as the original occupiers, in that, if others think they have superior numbers and force, they will certainly try to take the country away from us.

They are welcome to try. We have developed this country sociologically and technologically and now consider it ours, and we will keep it. We will make the cost of trying to take it away from us as high as humanly possible. We will use all the means at our disposal to keep it.

If anyone thinks we can be taken over, go ahead and try. It has always been the same all throughout history, if you can take it, it’s yours - but be sure you don’t want to lose what you already have.

If you feel the need to “debate this”, find someone else to talk to.

kirgi08
10-06-2012, 01:16
Their forefathers were legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants.
Too many people get the terms mixed.

Maybe,see below.

This country was built by legal immigrants.
All the illegal immigrants have ever done is take from this country and never give anything back.

No it wasn't,It was built by folk that wanted a new start.

Well, this is certainly moral relativism taken to a ridiculous extreme...


.

No my friend it's not,this thread is trying ta apply laws from England ta the "Founding" of this land.

This territory didn't belong to the colonists, it wasn't given to them...



Really? Where did they apply for their visas?

It wasn't,it was considered ta be what you can hold is yours.From the original settlement and beyond.

BINGO! You got it right. The same goes for Texas.

Disagree,Texas reclaimed from the Spaniards when?.The colonists started fighting when?.

Do you understand the concept of "Legal"?


There wasn't an existing law in North America that made migration "Illegal" hence the could not have been doing anything illegal.

Disagree my friend,tribal law existed well before the "written" law did.It was "tribe" wide yet it existed.Most tribes had the same basic code/s.


You don't need a law to tell someone what belongs to them...

Ayep.

Visas were not required. The original immigrants broke no laws when they came to America.

Disagree,they left,will say ""England",they left ta avoid religious persecution,the persecution part was part taxes AND choice of faith.So they left for personal freedom both monetary and religious.

Unlike the current crop of illegal trespassers who do break the law when they enter this country illegally.

There's a big difference.

..

Not really,those founders were motivated by principles,the Illegals are here following the American dream.What's the difference?,the costs.Our founders set up the system,folk have been allowed ta manipulate it.


They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

It's called "squatters",that was the system.No one claimed,it's yours.

Ignorance is not your friend.

The Natives at the time did not have a concept of "possesion" as we know it. Their "territory" was limited to what they were standing on basically. Personal possesions were also shared.

Quit looking at history through the glasses of today's values/morals/concepts.

They did have a "concept" of range/Hunting grounds.CG,They knew their limits.

Where was the Indian's titles to the land? They were constantly fighting each other for possession, and in the white man ran into a superior opponent. If you disagree, perhaps you could give your house lot back to the Indians.

White men killed more Natives by infection than rifle.As I've said above,I disagree with most of the assumptions I've read.'08.

series1811
10-06-2012, 05:04
Well, this is certainly moral relativism taken to a ridiculous extreme...


.


Or, really, legal relativism. I can't believe it didn't read, "our forefathers were undocumented citizens/voters, too".

Bren
10-06-2012, 05:27
They didn't use the term illegal immigrant back then, but...

Because there was no immigration law back then, so there were no "illegal" immigrants.

This territory didn't belong to the colonists, it wasn't given to them...


No, it wasn't given - they took it. That makes them invaders, but not "illegal" immigrants.

You don't need a law to tell someone what belongs to them...

Maybe not, but you need a "LAW" for that belonging to be "legal" or "Illegal" since that's what those words mean.

engineer151515
10-06-2012, 06:10
They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

There is no law saying you can't hand over your real estate deed to the local native American group of your choice.

Might even be a tax write off, if you do it right.

Cavalry Doc
10-06-2012, 06:33
I saw a car today in Illinois. It made me thing of you. It had a Texas plate, and a sticker that said "Combat Medic".

I used to train and lead combat medics. Typical medical platoon in an armor or infantry battalion has a PA, a medical admin lieutenant, 28 - 40 combat medics, and an MD (but only when deployed).

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/combat-medic-army-medic-demotivational-poster-1260455403.jpg

JayJay83
10-06-2012, 07:10
They took over something that didn't belong to them, even if there was no written law, it's the same basic principle.

Is that really a bad thing? Using your principle you could even argue that Britain doesn't belong to the Anglo-Saxons...

QNman
10-06-2012, 08:50
I would like to add the following:

My forefathers were native Americans (well, some of them anyway). The land WAS taken, in any sense or description of the word.

However, ONLY in modern America is this somehow considered a "crime" ir some other immoral behavior. For thousands of years, land is taken by conquering forces and claimed as their own. It's been that was since the beginning of time. I've never read once where the Romans were bashing their own for "stealing" land from the Germanians; it was and remains the way life is. The strong survive, thrive, and write the history books. Boo hoo.

ONLY in modern America, with our generations of schooling insisting that we should abhor our own existence for the alleged "sins" of our founding fathers, can what occurred be considered anything other than what it was - a stronger force taking the land from a weaker one and claiming it as their own.

Too, ONLY in modern America have you seen a modern government attempt in many ways to rectify the perceived wrongs, rebuild the land it conquered, and hand it back over after the fact. And oddly, the more we do, the more we get accused of being imperialists.

Paul7
10-06-2012, 09:16
No it wasn't,It was built by folk that wanted a new start.



No my friend it's not,this thread is trying ta apply laws from England ta the "Founding" of this land.



It wasn't,it was considered ta be what you can hold is yours.From the original settlement and beyond.



Disagree,Texas reclaimed from the Spaniards when?.The colonists started fighting when?.



Disagree my friend,tribal law existed well before the "written" law did.It was "tribe" wide yet it existed.Most tribes had the same basic code/s.




Ayep.



Not really,those founders were motivated by principles,the Illegals are here following the American dream.What's the difference?,the costs.Our founders set up the system,folk have been allowed ta manipulate it.




It's called "squatters",that was the system.No one claimed,it's yours.



They did have a "concept" of range/Hunting grounds.CG,They knew their limits.



White men killed more Natives by infection than rifle.As I've said above,I disagree with most of the assumptions I've read.'08.

The native infections were unintentional.

While taking possession of South America, Spain stopped this:

"Michael Harner, in his 1977 article The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice, estimates the number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the 15th century as high as 250,000 per year. Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl, a Mexica descendant and the author of Codex Ixtlilxochitl, estimated that one in five children of the Mexica subjects was killed annually. Victor Davis Hanson argues that a claim by Don Carlos Zumárraga of 20,000 per annum is "more plausible."[43] Other scholars believe that, since the Aztecs often tried to intimidate their enemies, it is more likely that they could have inflated the number as a propaganda tool.[44] The same can be said for Bernal Díaz's inflated calculations when, in a state of visual shock, he grossly miscalculated the number of skulls at one of the seven Tenochtitlan tzompantlis. The counter argument is that both the Aztecs and Diaz were very precise in the recording of the many other details of Aztec life, and inflation or propaganda would be unlikely. According the Florentine Codex, fifty years before the conquest the Aztecs burnt the skulls of the former tzompantli. Mexican archeologist Eduardo Matos Moctezuma has unearthed and studied some tzompantlis."

Wikipedia

conservativenut
10-06-2012, 09:27
Ignorance is not your friend.

The Natives at the time did not have a concept of "possesion" as we know it. Their "territory" was limited to what they were standing on basically. Personal possesions were also shared.

Quit looking at history through the glasses of today's values/morals/concepts.

Point of order there territory moved with the herds of animals they hunted.

JFrame
10-06-2012, 09:33
As someone noted above, history is written by the victors.

The Apache were keeping and trading slaves long before they themselves got shipped to reservations.


.

Paul7
10-06-2012, 09:49
As someone noted above, history is written by the victors.

The Apache were keeping and trading slaves long before they themselves got shipped to reservations.


.

Here in NM after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 when the Spanish were driven out, the Apache beat the stuffing out of the local Pueblo Indians. They were begging the Spanish to come back, which they did.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 12:59
Point of order there territory moved with the herds of animals they hunted.

Indeed and they were then standing on that land. They didn't run back to see if anyone was trespassing on the land they left three days ago


And to furhter debunk a myth before it gets started, several "tribes" were non-migratory. For instance the Athabascan speakers on my local region were completely sedintary in fixed "clan" villages, but they had no idea of a "territory" belonging to them, persay. The divisions between themselves and other tribes were actually genetic boundaries since it was custom to "steal' a wife from another tribe and hence, gene pool.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 13:23
I would like to add the following:

My forefathers were native Americans (well, some of them anyway). The land WAS taken, in any sense or description of the word.

However, ONLY in modern America is this somehow considered a "crime" ir some other immoral behavior. For thousands of years, land is taken by conquering forces and claimed as their own. It's been that was since the beginning of time. I've never read once where the Romans were bashing their own for "stealing" land from the Germanians; it was and remains the way life is. The strong survive, thrive, and write the history books. Boo hoo.

ONLY in modern America, with our generations of schooling insisting that we should abhor our own existence for the alleged "sins" of our founding fathers, can what occurred be considered anything other than what it was - a stronger force taking the land from a weaker one and claiming it as their own.

Too, ONLY in modern America have you seen a modern government attempt in many ways to rectify the perceived wrongs, rebuild the land it conquered, and hand it back over after the fact. And oddly, the more we do, the more we get accused of being imperialists.


Good points.

Where I am sitting, right now, was the sight of some of the most brutal fighting between White and Indians that ever occurred in the history of this Country, but I will bet not one in a thousand members of this forum ever heard of it. It happened befor the telegraph, before the transcontinental railroad, "way out west beyond civilization" some of it did, in very distorted reports, make it back to the east coast but by in large most here would be surprised to know that within a couple miles of my home is a mass grave for a large percentage of the white citizens of the former town, killed in one night, or that a couple of miles the other direction is a canyon where 13 of the indians captured a month later, were take while tied up and executed and their bodies dumped in the canyon.

Our history is rife with conflict, my area particularly, but interstingly the descendants of both sides live side by side today with very little issue. If you ever come through my area, stop and read the "Historical Markers" about that era along the highway. I was asked to re write the text on them
several years ago because both groups of historical representatives agreed that I would do the "fairest" job.

The point I am trying to make is that many people get along fine with the past, it is generally someone trying to get something out of it in the present that throws the bollocks on things.

Hef
10-06-2012, 14:00
This territory didn't belong to the colonists, it wasn't given to them...



REally? Where did they apply for their visas?

History is full of larger, stronger cultures seizing land from smaller, weaker cultures. The English, French, and Spanish came to North America and bought and/or fought their way into ownership of various regions. They then sent colonists to establish their culture in place of the native culture. The colonists were legal immigrants, establishing new states under the laws of their home countries.

Was it "nice", or "fair"? No. Was it legal? Yes. Several nations defeated lesser nations, therefore the laws of the victor nations rule.

What we face now are individuals from Central and South American countries deliberately crossing into the United States against our laws. They aren't soldiers conducting military operations to seize ground, nor are they diplomats offering to buy land. They are criminals here in violation of American law, and they need to go.

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 19:18
I thought liberals had stopped using the term illegal alien because they said it was racist?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine