New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Amnesty for illegal immigrants...

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
The sociological studies have shown that true immigrants that go through the process assimilate quite quickly into American Culture. The same studies show that groups like the Mexicans and South Americans have no plans to assimilate, they view it as living here and bringing as much of their culture with them. Just go to Southern California or Texas and this is pretty obvious. We presently are bringing in large blocks of Muslims, many through refugee programs. They not only do not want to assimilate, they want us to change to accommodate their culture. Amnesty will be a disaster and if its true goat boy is going to make it 35 million the fabric of our country will tear and you will see groups form in armed camps against one another, count o it.
Studies have always shown it takes about 3 generations for full assimilation.


Assimilation, sometimes known as integration or incorporation, is the process by which the characteristics of members of immigrant groups and host societies come to resemble one another. That process, which has both economic and sociocultural dimensions, begins with the immigrant generation and continues through the second generation and beyond.

Although the experiences of European groups coming to the United States in the early-20th century suggest that full assimilation generally occurs within three to four generations, no fixed timetable governs completion of the process. For example, recent historical research by sociologist Sharon L. Sassler on European immigrants to the United States has shown that, in 1920, the educational attainment of even third-generation Irish and Germans lagged well behind that of whites who had been in the country more than three generations.

Indeed, groups may vary in the apparent incompleteness of their assimilation for a number of reasons, including the level of human capital (education) they bring with them and the social and economic structure of the society they enter...

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/assimilation-models-old-and-new-explaining-long-term-process
 

Arkady

President
Arkady, whoever that is that said that, we were not in a constant gruesome war with each other. The constant gruesome war began with the 'whites', as they constantly pushed for more and more land. When they were defeated in a battle, they signed a treaty, and a few years later violated it. That gave them time to increase their numbers, and gain the will to fight again. And when they found they couldn't defeat their foe, us, they killed off 'the commissary. The buffalo slaughters was just one example. The woodlands around the Great Lakes was the home to Woodland Bison, until the Euros came. That was when they became extinct.

And if Native people were in 'constant gruesome warfare' with each other, there would not have been the commerce there was on this continent, the trading between tribes. And much of that trading stretched into Central and South America, which explains why pipestone pipes could be found in the south, and pottery from southern tribes found in mounds up here. All this craziness about 'constant gruesome wars' is just a false excuse for 'Manifest Destiny' taking place.

And I like your analogy of being treated by another alien invader.
It's tough to say what was going on in North America before the Europeans, since there's no written record, and (outside of a few regions) even the archaeology is spotty. Just based on studies of groups that had comparable technology and a tribal structure in a more modern era, I'm inclined to believe there was probably frequent tribal warfare that had relatively little bloodshed per conflict, but which built up a big death toll through sheer frequency. That describes the warfare in places like Papua New Guinea and the Amazon, where tribes were un-contacted by any advanced civilization until the modern era.

That said, it probably varied a great deal by region and even by tribe. Obviously, it's impossible to make accurate sweeping statements about a collection of peoples that include groups as disparate as the Aztecs and the Inuit. Things that are true about the Lakota are probably not going to be true about the Hopi or the Cherokee, just because of the way geography and local resources influence tribal development.

Having said that, though, I don't believe the argument that constant war is impossible based on the evidence of trading among tribes. Trade can coexist with frequent warfare. For example, in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, which had well-documented regular tribal warfare, there were still trade goods (like shells from coastal areas) that must necessarily have come by long-distance trade. Similarly, Rome was in a near-constant state of warfare for centuries, yet kept a trade-network going that brought them goods from as far away as China in the East and Britain in the Northwest.

One way or the other, the claim of the natives to the land isn't dependent on arguing they didn't war amongst themselves. Like I said, if the aliens came down and started claiming our land, the mere fact they could point to the fact we were constantly at war wouldn't excuse that. The United States, for example, has been in a constant state of war for over 13 years straight, and you'd be hard-pressed to find periods of more than a few years in its whole history when it wasn't fighting a war somewhere. Yet, we don't take that as voiding our right to our land.
 

Arkady

President
Studies have always shown it takes about 3 generations for full assimilation.


Assimilation, sometimes known as integration or incorporation, is the process by which the characteristics of members of immigrant groups and host societies come to resemble one another. That process, which has both economic and sociocultural dimensions, begins with the immigrant generation and continues through the second generation and beyond.

Although the experiences of European groups coming to the United States in the early-20th century suggest that full assimilation generally occurs within three to four generations, no fixed timetable governs completion of the process. For example, recent historical research by sociologist Sharon L. Sassler on European immigrants to the United States has shown that, in 1920, the educational attainment of even third-generation Irish and Germans lagged well behind that of whites who had been in the country more than three generations.

Indeed, groups may vary in the apparent incompleteness of their assimilation for a number of reasons, including the level of human capital (education) they bring with them and the social and economic structure of the society they enter...

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/assimilation-models-old-and-new-explaining-long-term-process
Interestingly, the most stubbornly un-assimilated of immigrant groups is of Western European origin: the Amish. Even after many, many generations, their social stats and culture differ dramatically from the country as a whole, and they even harbor their original German language.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
It's tough to say what was going on in North America before the Europeans, since there's no written record, and (outside of a few regions) even the archaeology is spotty. Just based on studies of groups that had comparable technology and a tribal structure in a more modern era, I'm inclined to believe there was probably frequent tribal warfare that had relatively little bloodshed per conflict, but which built up a big death toll through sheer frequency. That describes the warfare in places like Papua New Guinea and the Amazon, where tribes were un-contacted by any advanced civilization until the modern era.

That said, it probably varied a great deal by region and even by tribe. Obviously, it's impossible to make accurate sweeping statements about a collection of peoples that include groups as disparate as the Aztecs and the Inuit. Things that are true about the Lakota are probably not going to be true about the Hopi or the Cherokee, just because of the way geography and local resources influence tribal development.

Having said that, though, I don't believe the argument that constant war is impossible based on the evidence of trading among tribes. Trade can coexist with frequent warfare. For example, in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, which had well-documented regular tribal warfare, there were still trade goods (like shells from coastal areas) that must necessarily have come by long-distance trade. Similarly, Rome was in a near-constant state of warfare for centuries, yet kept a trade-network going that brought them goods from as far away as China in the East and Britain in the Northwest.

One way or the other, the claim of the natives to the land isn't dependent on arguing they didn't war amongst themselves. Like I said, if the aliens came down and started claiming our land, the mere fact they could point to the fact we were constantly at war wouldn't excuse that. The United States, for example, has been in a constant state of war for over 13 years straight, and you'd be hard-pressed to find periods of more than a few years in its whole history when it wasn't fighting a war somewhere. Yet, we don't take that as voiding our right to our land.
Battles, or even warfare, is hardly the same as 'gruesome wars'. You can find documented evidence, right in your own history. If that was 'constant gruesome wars' between tribes, The Native people who did battle, for example with the British against the Americans or the French, would have been constantly fighting. Even leaders like Bwandiac and Tecumseh could not put together a coalition of warriors who were prepared to carry on an insidious war with the Europeans. They won a battle, and felt it was time to go home.

That was their mindset when it came to fighting, we beat you its over with. Few nations were really warlike, except for those like the Lakota and Apache, even the Haudenosaunee made a pact of peace long before the Europeans came; that is until the Euros, and the fur trade, came here.. Few leaders ever were successful to put together a coalition like Geronimo, or Crazy Horse. Had they been successful, the expansion of European colonization would not have happened.

But I agree with most of what you say, I just find this 'constant gruesome wars' people love to claim ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Friscus

Governor
They took the land from the tribes that lived there and claimed it. I don't see any sense in arguing that the failure of those tribes to unite across larger geographic areas excused that. Here's a simple thought experiment. Imagine that some aliens come down and start dispossess humans of our planet -- pushing us back onto increasingly lousy land, breaking treaties, and eventually rounding us up onto a handful of reservations, mostly consisting of remote, unproductive land. Would it excuse those acts if they could point out that humans were constantly in gruseome wars with one another and were not a unified people from whom they'd taken the land?
1. The relationships of people sharing a world isn't akin to aliens invading a world.

2. For the most part, the countries of our world aren't constantly at war, thankfully.

3. Even so, history books would be foolish to talk about "humanity" as some united faction. We might unite against an alien attack, but we aren't peaceful innocents, such as Native Americans are portrayed.
 

Arkady

President
1. The relationships of people sharing a world isn't akin to aliens invading a world.

2. For the most part, the countries of our world aren't constantly at war, thankfully.

3. Even so, history books would be foolish to talk about "humanity" as some united faction. We might unite against an alien attack, but we aren't peaceful innocents, such as Native Americans are portrayed.
There are some silly sources that portray Native Americans as "peaceful innocents," but serious history has long recognized their complexity. But that complexity, including the warfare, can't be used to justify the expropriation of a continent from its original residents.
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
There are some silly sources that portray Native Americans as "peaceful innocents,"
Like nearly every academic textbook, for starters.
but serious history has long recognized their complexity. But that complexity, including the warfare, can't be used to justify the expropriation of a continent from its original residents.
Not justify, but also to not villify the settlers.

What I know? The settlers came to a new land, with a few pure ideals about freedom from a King along with a bunch of greedy ideals.

Then, the Natives and them went to war, and the settlers won thanks to disease and technology. That's about it.

If we held the standard you hold, with all of the land conquered throughout history, nobody is justified to be anything.
 

Arkady

President
Like nearly every academic textbook, for starters.


Not justify, but also to not villify the settlers.

What I know? The settlers came to a new land, with a few pure ideals about freedom from a King along with a bunch of greedy ideals.

Then, the Natives and them went to war, and the settlers won thanks to disease and technology. That's about it.

If we held the standard you hold, with all of the land conquered throughout history, nobody is justified to be anything.
I can't speak to the contents of recent textbooks, but certainly none of the American history textbooks I was exposed to in school portrayed Native Americans as peaceful prior to the coming of the Europeans.

Also, I'm not trying to vilify the settlers -- at least not all of them. I had many of them among my own ancestors, and I know that they were sometimes victims of Native Americans, as well as victimizers. For example, I had ancestors who bought land from local tribes in Southern Maine, lived peacefully alongside them, then were driven out by war bands of non-local tribes working on behalf of the French, who were using them as a proxy army against the English.

But, as you know, there were a lot of examples where settlers threw their weight around, slaughtering natives for no better reason than that the natives had some land the settlers wanted, and lacked the power to resist effectively.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
I can't speak to the contents of recent textbooks, but certainly none of the American history textbooks I was exposed to in school portrayed Native Americans as peaceful prior to the coming of the Europeans.

Also, I'm not trying to vilify the settlers -- at least not all of them. I had many of them among my own ancestors, and I know that they were sometimes victims of Native Americans, as well as victimizers. For example, I had ancestors who bought land from local tribes in Southern Maine, lived peacefully alongside them, then were driven out by war bands of non-local tribes working on behalf of the French, who were using them as a proxy army against the English.

But, as you know, there were a lot of examples where settlers threw their weight around, slaughtering natives for no better reason than that the natives had some land the settlers wanted, and lacked the power to resist effectively.
Arkady, Native people didn't sell land. They may have accepted gifts for the right to live among their people, but they didn't sell land. That was something that was unfathomable. I know most people don't comprehend that, but that was how it was. I know of accounts where Europeans came in, offered gifts, and were told they were welcome to live in those lands, and when they came back the next year were told they could not stay there because the Europeans said it now belonged to them.

Haha, engravings by Capt. John Smith, and his fancifully false account of his relationship with Pocahontas, shows even how he related to the Native people. I think history books are written by and for the 'victors'. I would suggest to anyone they read what the Dominican missionary, Fray Bartolome de Las Casas, had to say about the Natives they encountered compared to Columbus and his men. Just one example:

Note here the natural, simple and kind gentleness and humble conditions of the Indians, and want of arms or protection, gave the Spaniards the insolence to hold them of little account, deal with them in any way they wish, without regard to sex, age, status or dignity.

Hell yes, Native people retaliated against the Europeans, they saw how others were treated.

It's very easy to find many accounts that completely void so much that is written in history books. One of my favorite was found in the 'history book' on Michigan, and many other books, was how Bwondiac was portrayed as treasonous toward 'his king'. George was not Bwondiacs king, Bwondiac was not a British subject except in their eyes.
 

Arkady

President
Arkady, Native people didn't sell land. They may have accepted gifts for the right to live among their people, but they didn't sell land. That was something that was unfathomable.
There were countless tribes, with enormous differences between them. It would be impossible to make sweeping statements that would cover all those cultures, including as to their relationship with the land. Some tribes were hunter-gatherer people who ranged over huge areas and had only vague ideas of tribal territoriality, and nothing like what we think of as exclusive land ownership concepts. Other tribes had well-established towns and concepts of property ownership much closer to how we think of land today. With some tribes, and especially early in the history of contact with Europeans, I think it's fair to say that the European and Native sides of the treaties had wholly different ideas as to what it was they were agreeing to. But, with other tribes, and especially after generations of interaction had familiarized the natives with the European way of thinking, I would regard it as condescending and unrealistic to imagine that the Natives still couldn't conceptualize the European idea of land ownership, and that they therefore never understood what it was the Europeans believed they were bargaining for in those treaties.

Human nature is universal. Just as there were Europeans who willfully violated treaties for their own advantage, there were Native people who did the same. I'll admit the European transgressions far outnumbered the Native ones (since the Europeans were generally far more powerful and thus far more likely to see advantage in stepping outside the agreements), but it would be unrealistic to imagine that any time the Natives ran afoul of a treaty, it's because they didn't understand the concepts included in the treaty.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
There were countless tribes, with enormous differences between them. It would be impossible to make sweeping statements that would cover all those cultures, including as to their relationship with the land. Some tribes were hunter-gatherer people who ranged over huge areas and had only vague ideas of tribal territoriality, and nothing like what we think of as exclusive land ownership concepts. Other tribes had well-established towns and concepts of property ownership much closer to how we think of land today. With some tribes, and especially early in the history of contact with Europeans, I think it's fair to say that the European and Native sides of the treaties had wholly different ideas as to what it was they were agreeing to. But, with other tribes, and especially after generations of interaction had familiarized the natives with the European way of thinking, I would regard it as condescending and unrealistic to imagine that the Natives still couldn't conceptualize the European idea of land ownership, and that they therefore never understood what it was the Europeans believed they were bargaining for in those treaties.

Human nature is universal. Just as there were Europeans who willfully violated treaties for their own advantage, there were Native people who did the same. I'll admit the European transgressions far outnumbered the Native ones (since the Europeans were generally far more powerful and thus far more likely to see advantage in stepping outside the agreements), but it would be unrealistic to imagine that any time the Natives ran afoul of a treaty, it's because they didn't understand the concepts included in the treaty.
Arkady, why do you think there was such a thing as the Indian Removal Act? Sure Native people, in the east, had finally comprehended there was no truth in what the government, or whites at all, said. Hence the Removal Act was created. Hell, even Jackson went against the Supreme Court, in regards to the rights of the Cherokee, and what a treaty meant. Jackson's words, in regards to Marshall's decision: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". We can make all kinds of excuses, but this is how you buy land from 'Indians'.
 

fairsheet

Senator
My problem with the Fox/GOP's "amnesty" shout, is that it forestalls any rational consideration of the question. I accept that in this current era, there are reasons for borders and reasons why we can't simply accept any and all comers. However, there ARE lots of ways we "citizens" can turn these presumptive "ee-leegals" to OUR advantage at the same time we're advantaging them.

Alas...such reasonable discussion is forestalled by those who would shout "Amnesty" at even the most rational ideas.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
Put them on a baseball team though, and they're welcomed with open arms. It's a pretty sad thing when a human being is only considered valuable when they can contribute to someone's entertainment quotient.
 
Top