This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.
Posted on 08/22/2007 12:01:50 PM PDT by dan1123
A couple of days ago, I heard a caller on a talk show make a really interesting point:
"If the United States had been founded by immigrants, we'd all be speaking Indian today."
That crystallized matters for me. People who move from one nation to another come in two forms: colonists and immigrants.
Colonists bring their own culture, their own language, their own ways to the new land and attempt to adapt it to the new area. In our specific example, the earliest Americans saw themselves as British and tried to expand the British way of life in the New World. Those already living here were displaced, killed, or assimilated. (Right or wrong, it's historical fact.) There was no attempt to assimilate by the colonists, no efforts made at fitting in and becoming part of the existing structures -- they were overwritten with an adaptation of the European model. It wasn't until after we won our independence and established ourselves as America that we started welcoming immigrants.
Immigrants are different. They are not looking to expand their home culture, but become a part of a new one. They might keep some of their old ways, but for the most part they have chosen to set it aside in favor of a new way of life. The Irish, for example, focus on one day a year to return to their roots.
The recent mass protests in favor of illegal aliens showed their true colors -- red, white, and green. Mexican flags were highly prominent, in some cases even being flown over United States flags (and in one stunning display of contempt, flying over an inverted American flag).
These are not the actions of immigrants. This is a declaration of intent by would-be colonists.
America is, indeed, a nation of immigrants. We owe much of our explosive growth from a shabby baker's dozen of colonies into the world's sole hyperpower to our policy of taking in refugees, cast-offs, the "wretched refuse" and "teeming masses" of the rest of the world and converting them into Americans. We are the mongrels and the mutts of the world, and we are top dog.
And that is why we must still continue to embrace and welcome immigrants of all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds, and cultures. But we have to draw a distinction between immigrants and colonists. Those who want to come here purely to enrich themselves, to gain as many of the benefits of being in America without giving back to America, to make their largesse off Americans to send money back to enrich their homeland, are not immigrants. They remind me of one of the more unpleasant aspects of my own ethnic heritage -- the Viking pillagers who ravaged the European coastlines. They took what they wanted, and gave little or nothing back in return.
We must continue to embrace immigrants. And we must not accept colonists.
sums it up pretty well. execpt I would have used the words “squatters”, and “invaders”.
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.
If I truely thought these individuals were just victims of their former government, and actually had a firm respect for our Constitution and way of life...I might be a bit more forgiving.
But that initial march showed their outright arrogance. It showed a great deal of them felt entitled to the land and our wealth...and sorry, that’s just not going to go well with many Americans...me included.
You have provided a very good analogy in the behavioral difference between the political activist community (and many in the community) of “Hispanic” immigrants and most other immigrants to the U.S.
I can imagine it must be morally and socially perplexing to the average Asian, African, Middle Eastern, and European immigrant to the U.S. that the English speaking nation they believed they were immigrating to is suggesting they all learn Spanish as well, and that they should adapt, here in the U.S., from their own culture to Hispanic culture as well. If this trend were to continue, I could see it eventually hurting the existing immigration rates to the U.S. from non-Hispanic nations.
Why shouldn’t they be? They have no respect for our laws because they know they can get away with breaking them time after time and not get deported.
“...we must still continue to embrace and welcome immigrants of all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds, and cultures...”
Why? What will the thousands from Somalia bring to enrich us besides challenging our immune systems. There is one “creed” we do not need. Mohammedans should not be allowed to come here except on an individual basis (individual has served U.S. interest in the past and is owed an important debt of gratitude or individual has technical or scientific knowledge that is needed here).
The thousands of Mohammedans pouring into the United States endangers us. They will not enrich us.
How about the term “illegal colonists”.
You make good points. Since the US is an established country with “immigration laws” on the books, illegal does work for me. And colonists is an apt description also per lead article.
Illegal colonists go home!!
they are colonists for islam
Samuel Huntington makes an excellent point. Early Americans were settlers, as opposed to immigrants.
That's exactly what Ted Kennedy thought when he wrote the 1965 Immigration Act.
Most people do not realize that America's immigration law was severely restrictive before the radical change in 1965.
The moniker "A Nation of Immigrants" is inaccurate (or at least an oversimplification). Our Nation historically allowed immigrants only from Northern and Western Europe.
I slightly disagree with this statement. I believe the early colonist would not have survived without some of the knowledge and cooperation from the natives. As the colonists prospered, they eventually came to see the natives as uncivilized and unwilling to except the European way of living. As far as assimilation, there were many different tribes who had their own costumes and practices. Contact with each tribe would have required a different approach. In the end, it was easier just to run them off or kill them.
That may not be as true as we often believe. First, American history is not one of continued immigration. We've had long stretches with very little immigration. After the Revolutionary War, for nearly fifty years, there was practically no immigration at all. The U.S. grew rapidly through natural increase. And in 1840, the make-up of the white population in America (not the slaves) was almost excatly what it was in 1790: largely (60%) English, heavily (80%) British, and overwhelmingly (98%) Protestant.
After 1840, immigration flowed and ebbed about every 15 or 20 years: there were flows in 1851-54, 1866-73, 1881-83, 1905-07, and 1921-24. In between it dramatically ebbed.
These ebbs and flows made assimilation possible.
So did the fact that the ethnic composition of the immigrants after 1840 continuously changed. First it was mostly Irish; then German; by the end in the late 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe.
Even with that...by 1924, Americans had enough of the 80 years of immigration...and drastically reduced it. After 1924, immigration was reduced to a trickle but that trickle was from Northern and Western Europe.
The last Great Wave (1880-1920) of immigrants is the only class of immigrants to the US (prior to the 1965-current crop) that could really be called "teeming masses"...until that wave, most immigrants were better off than the native-born Americans...emigration across the Atlantic was a major undertaking and not something done by those with no means. But did the Great Wave really "build America"...not likely...more like they jumped on a rolling economic wagon that was already started
The moniker "A Nation of Immigrants" is inaccurate (or at least an oversimplification). Our Nation historically allowed immigrants only from Northern and Western Europe.
Exactly right...see my post #15...unfortunately, most Americans have no idea now having bought into the "Nation of Immigrants" nonsense...a moniker no doubt designed to silence those who would suggest that we now curtail immigration 40 years into this massive immigration boom
Thanks for this excellent post.
The author did well except this part :”America is, indeed, a nation of immigrants. “
No we’re not. How many in the US are ‘immigrants’? Let’s say 10%. What does that make the rest of us? NATIVES.
When this nation was founded, only 4 or 5 of the founders were born elsewhere.
“The author did well except this part :”America is, indeed, a nation of immigrants. “
No we’re not. How many in the US are ‘immigrants’? Let’s say 10%. What does that make the rest of us? NATIVES.”
You nailed it!
Since the author has drawn a line between colonists and immigrants, an honest immigrant who came here legally and desires to become an American culturally should not be a problem. I would argue that there are Islamic colonists in the United States as well.
If Islamists, Chinese, or Mexicans have the goal of carving out their own culture here and pushing aside American culture, we should not welcome them. If they really want to become American, then let them come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.