Maybe if the "Native Americans" hadn't been pussyfooting around with each other, they'd have had a solidified government with which to claim illegality of European settlement, and with which to perhaps repel them.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-12-11 17:23:14)
Yeah... That's one loophole we should immediately close.{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Or a man and woman come here illegally, have a kid to become one. Once the kid is born, they are an American citizen, so the government wont kick them out, and wont kick the parents out. Then they get out of having to pay medical bills because they arent here legally.PspRpg-7 wrote:
I don't care about LEGAL immigrants. But not illegals. I also hate illegals that marry a US citizen and become one.
*dude sits in the hospital with a broken arm; illegal immigrant arrives with a sliver, gets shunted ahead in line*Turquoise wrote:
Yeah... That's one loophole we should immediately close.{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Or a man and woman come here illegally, have a kid to become one. Once the kid is born, they are an American citizen, so the government wont kick them out, and wont kick the parents out. Then they get out of having to pay medical bills because they arent here legally.PspRpg-7 wrote:
I don't care about LEGAL immigrants. But not illegals. I also hate illegals that marry a US citizen and become one.
It's more like... if the Native Americans had a lot of technology and had domesticated animals (to build up resistance to disease), they would have had the ability to kick us out. They also were much fewer in number than the European colonists.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Maybe if the "Native Americans" hadn't been pussyfooting around with each other, they'd have had a solidified government with which to claim illegality of European settlement, and with which to perhaps repel them.
Huh? HUH?!
Actually, while the children are legal, the parents are still illegal. That was one of the big arguments against attempting to round up the illegals and deporting them. What do you do about such a situation? We would end up with a lot of orphans from parents how are trying to give their children a better life by leaving them here.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah... That's one loophole we should immediately close.{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Or a man and woman come here illegally, have a kid to become one. Once the kid is born, they are an American citizen, so the government wont kick them out, and wont kick the parents out. Then they get out of having to pay medical bills because they arent here legally.PspRpg-7 wrote:
I don't care about LEGAL immigrants. But not illegals. I also hate illegals that marry a US citizen and become one.
Last edited by weamo8 (2006-12-11 17:40:16)
I just think we should amend the law to say that at least one of the parents must be an American citizen first for the child to become one. Almost every First World country has the same rule on that. I'm pretty sure that's how Canada's citizenship laws work regarding birth.weamo8 wrote:
Actually, while the children are legal, the parents are still illegal. That was one of the big arguments against attempting to round up the illegals and deporting them. What do you do about such a situation? We would end up with a lot of orphans from parents how are trying to give their children a better life by leaving them here.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah... That's one loophole we should immediately close.{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Or a man and woman come here illegally, have a kid to become one. Once the kid is born, they are an American citizen, so the government wont kick them out, and wont kick the parents out. Then they get out of having to pay medical bills because they arent here legally.
By the way, I was born in the United States. I am as native as any damned "indian."
Edit: bad spelling.
Trust me... it's a very different situation when you border a highly populated poor country.Ess wrote:
Maybe I am missing something here but are ALL Americans not immigrants ?
So what the recent immigrants are saying is that the more recent immigrants should get out because they dont want immigrants
Jeez - I thought Scotland had a complex
Actually, it's more like... if the Native Americans didn't wreck their own culture, then they'd...wait. Our two posts are saying the exact same thing. So where's the argument?Turquoise wrote:
It's more like... if the Native Americans had a lot of technology and had domesticated animals (to build up resistance to disease), they would have had the ability to kick us out. They also were much fewer in number than the European colonists.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Maybe if the "Native Americans" hadn't been pussyfooting around with each other, they'd have had a solidified government with which to claim illegality of European settlement, and with which to perhaps repel them.
Huh? HUH?!
Well, I'd agree that Europe had a major advantage because of technology. I wouldn't say that all the Native American cultures were self-destructive though. Quite a few of them were just peaceful societies minding their own business.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Actually, it's more like... if the Native Americans didn't wreck their own culture, then they'd...wait. Our two posts are saying the exact same thing. So where's the argument?Turquoise wrote:
It's more like... if the Native Americans had a lot of technology and had domesticated animals (to build up resistance to disease), they would have had the ability to kick us out. They also were much fewer in number than the European colonists.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Maybe if the "Native Americans" hadn't been pussyfooting around with each other, they'd have had a solidified government with which to claim illegality of European settlement, and with which to perhaps repel them.
Huh? HUH?!
The "Native Americans" used to be more advanced than they were when encountered by Europe. Their doom was ultimately their own social decay (no, I didn't see Apocalypto), and were thus gradually swallowed by a superior civilization (through direct as well as indirect means). Unfortunately for the peaceful societies, they were swallowed up along with the 'savages.' I'm not implying that you're among this number, but people have been too brainwashed by Disney's Pocahontas outlook to actually examine the history of the matter.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'd agree that Europe had a major advantage because of technology. I wouldn't say that all the Native American cultures were self-destructive though. Quite a few of them were just peaceful societies minding their own business.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Actually, it's more like... if the Native Americans didn't wreck their own culture, then they'd...wait. Our two posts are saying the exact same thing. So where's the argument?Turquoise wrote:
It's more like... if the Native Americans had a lot of technology and had domesticated animals (to build up resistance to disease), they would have had the ability to kick us out. They also were much fewer in number than the European colonists.
Disease probably killed more Indians than anything else. This invisible killer was something that the Europeans were only partially aware of, since medicine was still pretty primitive by today's standards.
I guess what I mean is... while many natives harmed each other through warfare, most of the decimation of the natives resulted from external factors like disease and a serious technological disadvantage against the Europeans. It wasn't really their own fault...
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-12-11 18:38:18)
I'll start a new thread to prevent further hijacking.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The "Native Americans" used to be more advanced than they were when encountered by Europe. Their doom was ultimately their own social decay (no, I didn't see Apocalypto), and were thus gradually swallowed by a superior civilization (through direct as well as indirect means). Unfortunately for the peaceful societies, they were swallowed up along with the 'savages.'Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'd agree that Europe had a major advantage because of technology. I wouldn't say that all the Native American cultures were self-destructive though. Quite a few of them were just peaceful societies minding their own business.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Actually, it's more like... if the Native Americans didn't wreck their own culture, then they'd...wait. Our two posts are saying the exact same thing. So where's the argument?
Disease probably killed more Indians than anything else. This invisible killer was something that the Europeans were only partially aware of, since medicine was still pretty primitive by today's standards.
I guess what I mean is... while many natives harmed each other through warfare, most of the decimation of the natives resulted from external factors like disease and a serious technological disadvantage against the Europeans. It wasn't really their own fault...
gonna have to keep that one for future useweamo8 wrote:
By the way, I was born in the United States. I am as native as any damned "indian."
Edit: bad spelling.
yeha, basically we're mexico's welfare fund, the government even counts the money sent back by fence jumpers into their budget, accounting for something like 40% of it last i heardTurquoise wrote:
Trust me... it's a very different situation when you border a highly populated poor country.Ess wrote:
Maybe I am missing something here but are ALL Americans not immigrants ?
So what the recent immigrants are saying is that the more recent immigrants should get out because they dont want immigrants
Jeez - I thought Scotland had a complex
yeah and we can send bush with it because no one really wants a cowboy for a president...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
We should give them Texas. No one really wants it anyway.Pernicious544 wrote:
Tuff Bananasncc6206 wrote:
Good point. By the way, Mexico wants Texas and California back.
Last edited by InfectiousShadow (2006-12-11 19:24:19)
lol... I wouldn't be surprised.kr@cker wrote:
yeha, basically we're mexico's welfare fund, the government even counts the money sent back by fence jumpers into their budget, accounting for something like 40% of it last i heardTurquoise wrote:
Trust me... it's a very different situation when you border a highly populated poor country.Ess wrote:
Maybe I am missing something here but are ALL Americans not immigrants ?
So what the recent immigrants are saying is that the more recent immigrants should get out because they dont want immigrants
Jeez - I thought Scotland had a complex
lol... the operative word here is "fucking"PspRpg-7 wrote:
Awww shit, there goes my thoughts on this thread.
Look: He's not a fucking cowboy, he may not be the brightest star, but he's the fucking president...TWICE, show some respect. Kerry looked like he was left in the oven too long, his face is all metly. Melty faced bastard.
fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking.Turquoise wrote:
lol... the operative word here is "fucking"PspRpg-7 wrote:
Awww shit, there goes my thoughts on this thread.
Look: He's not a fucking cowboy, he may not be the brightest star, but he's the fucking president...TWICE, show some respect. Kerry looked like he was left in the oven too long, his face is all metly. Melty faced bastard.
yeah at least he isnt as much of a dumbass as Al Gore and at least he didnt have Botox like kerry. i dont really like bush but what can you do...PspRpg-7 wrote:
Awww shit, there goes my thoughts on this thread.
Look: He's not a fucking cowboy, he may not be the brightest star, but he's the fucking president...TWICE, show some respect. Kerry looked like he was left in the oven too long, his face is all metly. Melty faced bastard.
a;slkdjf;aieupoiehaksndfas;djfaTurquoise wrote:
LOL.... ok... I'll stop... I won't hijack further...
Last edited by PspRpg-7 (2006-12-11 19:39:09)
We do - Its called EnglandTurquoise wrote:
Trust me... it's a very different situation when you border a highly populated poor country.Ess wrote:
Maybe I am missing something here but are ALL Americans not immigrants ?
So what the recent immigrants are saying is that the more recent immigrants should get out because they dont want immigrants
Jeez - I thought Scotland had a complex
