The debate "The first Americans were Illegal Immigrants" was started by
an anonymous person on
December 11, 2015, 8:32 pm.
32 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 19 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Socrates posted 2 arguments, godisjustsomethingwemade posted 1 argument, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Fettywap100 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
truth_or_ture, kgb, Sageofthe6Paths, godisjustsomethingwemade, curlyyxx, RAMD97, Picassota, kallistigold23, famouslorie, omgflyingbannas, AngryBlogger, AlertedVision, jjrocks1738, H_Muneer, barman and 17 visitors agree.
relarishabh, Legendary_kcv, MrShine, cody121, Fettywap100, ReadyToBegin, DiamondPerfect, fLipp3r and 11 visitors disagree.
The first americans were already here so they can't be "illegal" immigrants. what? this question doesn't even make sense.
false. American laws simply weren't founded at the time Americans came, so therefore they weren't "illegal" but just immigrants.
Nope. The first Americans broke no laws. It was fair game libtards.
Your focus on proving persecution by race or religion is seriously sidetracking the conversation too. Race didn't matter, I'm sure that's been proven. If not, tell me how it was racially motivated, or how it would have mattered if they were white. Religion didn't provide reason to either, though it could be argued you aren't going to tell me North America was founded because they had to persecute the Natives, are you?
But you can't disagree that the Native Americans were seriously lacking. At the time of the Norse mentioned, their metalwork, tactics, their entire culture was pretty much capable. Their swords and weapons were made with the best metals of the time, crucible steel, and to even have a minor achievement like that, not even the Native Americans had that. Lesser culture doesn't mean certain death, but for the natives it does. Not to mention the traditions and speed that raiding took were an example of development the Native Americans couldn't dream to have with boats. So not the same. Disease also accounted for more than a handful of native American deaths, the handful that probably makes them memorable, excluding Andrew Jackson's role of course. Slavery was a thing, but disease among slaves again the disease. The truth is that settlers didn't actively go to kill, you admit this. You say it is the king's will, but what command did he issue? This is the truth: The natives weren't innocent people, they didn't have the skills to raid like Vikings, they had no weapons to resist, no natural immunity, and relied on a nomadic lifestyle. Where were the natives supposed to wander if land was to be owned? On the land they were allowed or if they claimed land. They didn't, so the disruption to their lifestyle was their inability to change. Why couldn't they change? They didn't have the civilization to, not that they lacked resources. South America's conquest was much more brutal, but because of the gold. We didn't want anything that the native Americans had, just land they lived on. Incomparable to the examples provided, little less development doesn't mean no civilization.
How can you possibly make the argument it wasn't stolen? the Treaty of Tordesillas signed in 1494 claimed the new world. They had only just discovered it about a year earlier and they decided they owned it. They knew people lived there. Whether or not those people had a good understanding of ownership didn't matter. They had only just discovered them. They didn't know they didn't all have a sense of ownership. The decision to take their land was made before they started colonizing. I'm not saying individual colonists decided to kill natives. I'm saying the kings of Europe decided from day one to kill or conquer them. And that is exactly what they did. The fact that some survived doesn't mean it wasn't genocide. And the fact that disease would have killed some of them doesn't prove that they were doomed.
There are lots of examples of less developed people coming into contact with more developed peoples and not being utterly destroyed. And the natives were clearly destroyed since they were all killed or absorbed and converted. Look at the norse people interacting with catholic Europe. They were tribal pagans, they didn't end up enslaved or destroyed by the Christians. They did convert, but they weren't murdered en mass.
Come on History buff, live up to your name! Remember how accountability works, how disease works (especially how one sided immunity occurs during settling), remember the law and how to break a law, remember who writes history, remember the advancements of two civilizations and compare them, remember heuristics and what they make you remember, and remember what it takes to peacefully settle on a land of people who actually don't believe in private land ownership. Because you've been forgetting all of this, and that's not how honest evaluations go. Heck, this doesn't even cover the debate topic, we've already decided that it is impossible for the settlers to have illegally done it. So the question would have to be "is settling next a people immoral"? You would say taking their land, but history does prove that their loss of land was not due to settlement in itself, and certainly broken promises and malice can be found in some people, but as a race, a civilization, it was not stolen and the act of settling is not immoral.
So it their decline and deaths to disease the fault of the Europeans? Like I said about the disease, it was going to happen. There were Native American slaves and as bad as that may be, I'm sure they were intended to work, not die. The actual slavery system isn't part of the discussion, but being freed and given land and pay are factors involved, not to mention that the native Americans lived much longer than a planned extermination or "move bitch, get out the way" plan. Really, you must know that it is true. And doesn't it go to say that those who did wrong, are themselves wrong and not the race. As if it was every colonists planned to kill and conquer because it was their right, but it really wasn't. Manifest destiny wasn't even a large ideology either, certainly money was but what paves roads and provides food? It's true for any group not sponsored by a country large enough. Here's how it is, the settlers settled, and years later whenever something negative about settling pops up, it sets the mood for the entire past and their attitudes. The past doesn't write the past, the future does, and here's why we pity: because its easy to pity a people that don't have to be seen. History writes that they were victims because settlers killed them, but in they end they would have died. Trying to integrate into culture? Disease. Trying to live with new animals roaming around? Disease/death. Ignoring land sales? Killed for trespassing, or sent to jail with disease. Trying to move away from Europeans? Europeans claim land and move closer. Try to upgrade your civilization to survive? Now that's stronger, sure, but if you can't shake hands without catching something, don't have the basic equipment to make basic equipment, must come up with developments that have been missed out on, it takes too long and requires leadership, and even then no country would let a threat exist if it gets large enough. It wasn't maliciousness, it was never making medicine or guns, the lack of society that killed them. Lacking to that severe of a degree requires that the country hold them in a reservation with little contact, and that's for the first few years, they would have died living next to a developed people. And what happened? Are there people with native American blood, free and alive? How did that happen if old whitey wanted the OG Amerihican dead? It's just what happened.
Europeans didn't tend to wipe out entire groups of Christians. not by that time. they didn't intentionally spread disease to exterminate Christians either. the truth is they didn't see natives as people so they used that to justify killing and cheating them.
Race and religion had little to nothing to do with it. It wouldn't have mattered if White Christians left Europe of their own volition to live in North America, and possibly even settle, because if a country wants to impose taxes and claim land (you know, the basics for a country) then it'd make more sense to listen to a king over a original inhabitant. The native Americans did agreed to sell their land too, thinking it was foolish to claim land as ones own. Certainly smallpox blankets aren't excuse able, but by comparison they would have just as easily caught the disease from the settlers, why? Because Europeans domesticated animals and lived alongside them since childhood, while native Americans as far as the south lived in no such way, alongside but at a distance. So it was handled in the same way as a European by buying it, but of course who do you think actually obeyed boundaries, how can we say they were cheated, and and how can we say if it was about race or religion when none of these would provide reason for it to be another way? Agreed upon land for native Americans has been cheated by Europeans, yes, but that time is never argued on unless it is about what Andrew Jackson did. So even a crime committed against native Americans can't be attributed to a race but individuals. Wouldn't saying otherwise be...racist?
I'm not arguing it was right. I'm arguing it was not "illegal". most of us agree that it was not "illegal"
So native Americans were solely peaceful then? Or was it that any attacks couldn't be worth mentioning because if they did attack (and occasionally they did) the result is still the same. Native Americans did scalp, kill, and use drugs to hallucinate (tobacco does count, and oxygen deprivation from hot boxed huts is an attempt to get high. The native Americans could and did do what you described by themselves, except clearly a civilization will be more successful. The natives didn't claim land, because they didn't see it necessary, they were not numerous enough. Give them the population and size of Europe, and expect them to be territorial less forgiving than Europeans
not having the same concept of ownership is not the same as saying they didn't own it. they lived there for thousands of years. by European rules they owned it. the reason the Europeans didn't see it that way is because they were racist and religious. if they had found white Christians instead of what they were then it would have gone very differently. illegal is not the proper word since there wasn't a law against it. but it was still immoral, genocidal, evil, torture, murder, and lots of other terrible things. unlike Mexicans, Europeans really did bring drugs, crime and death with them.
Legal comes down to whether or not you're properly registered to be taxed, be drafted for war, and the such. The native Americans had no concept of a draft or taxes, because what they had amounted to not much more than tribes, what government existed? Therefore, calling them uncivilized isn't actually an insult. It is to say that civilization is minimal but flawed to the point of nonexistent. No civilization or laws, or means to enforce laws, no claims on land or property distribution or required action "for your country" means that settling on the continent couldn't possibly be illegal, and they couldn't be pushed off of their land if they are nomadic and don't claim land.
have you done anything without permission? if yes, then according to your logic, your breaking the law.
Okay, I get what your saying about there not being law, but still. Not a single colonist asked one of them for permission to settle. Though they may have let them settle there, it was still "Illegal", because they never got permission. Of course, you can't really have illegal without laws, but it's from lack of a better word.
the natives did not believe in ownership of land. that idea of owning land was brought by the settlers.
also many natives were friendly and welcomed those people to america. we're those who were welcomed and liked by the natives breaking any will, or law by the natives? no.
even if there was a law, that wouldnt have stopped the americans.
Though there was no law, it can still be counted as a form of "Illegal" Immigration, for lack of a better word. It's not like the colonist wanted permission to settle, and even when the Native Americans said no, they refused to leave, when the land was rightly the Natives
was there any law against them coming here? nope. if you don't break a law it's not illegal.