In the year 1607, a group of Englishmen and women pulled their ship up to a strange new land. It was called "Jamestown." Before the new settlers even left for Jamestown, Virginia, seven council members were decided upon to govern the new colony. They began to settle into this town, however, the native Algonquian Indians made this a bit hard to do. The colonist's camps were raided, their pistols and supplies were stolen, some of their men were killed, and their leader, Captain John Smith, was captured (and was only released later because of Pocahontas pleading for his and his men's lives). They were most certainly not wanted there. Okay, so you know the story. I do have a point, I promise.
By the end of the 15th century, there were thriving colonies in Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, North and South Carolina, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Georgia soon came into the picture in 1732. Trade between the Native Americans and the new settlers was common, but it most certainly would not be safe to say that peace filled the land. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was written for these thirteen colonies. In 1789 our Democracy officially began and George Washington became the first President of the United States. Now, here's the fun part... let's watch America being born!
All land within American borders was American land that could be bought or sold. So here's the question no one seemed to be asking -- what about the Native Americans? What gave colonists the right to take this land and to make a new governmental structure? Why didn't they stop and get permission by the Natives before settling in their land?
America was founded by what could be called "illegal" immigration (at least to the Natives). And for what -- to find freedom. How can we put a wall up around a country for the reasons in which it was founded? Still, it became a glorious place where people came to escape the terrors of their own governments and economies. And, eventually the Natives were given reparation for our naughty deed. The federal government now has an obligation to allow and protect tribal reservations and the right for tribes to govern themselves. To say that this reparation makes up for all of the land we took from the Native Americans and all the discrimination they endured is absurd, but I suppose it's a little too late to turn things around now.
I am in no means saying that it's "right" for a Mexican to come into America, let their children use our public school systems, not pay taxes... of course that isn't right. But do we really need to go to the extremes of building a wall around the Land of the Free? Does that actually make sense -- our freedom being protected by a big thick wall? Us treating people who just wanted to escape oppression and poverty as criminals?
Michelle Moses is a Christian, a Libertarian, and an incoming sophmore at her local community college. She can be reached at michellepm@comcast.net
By the end of the 15th century, there were thriving colonies in Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, North and South Carolina, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Georgia soon came into the picture in 1732. Trade between the Native Americans and the new settlers was common, but it most certainly would not be safe to say that peace filled the land. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was written for these thirteen colonies. In 1789 our Democracy officially began and George Washington became the first President of the United States. Now, here's the fun part... let's watch America being born!
All land within American borders was American land that could be bought or sold. So here's the question no one seemed to be asking -- what about the Native Americans? What gave colonists the right to take this land and to make a new governmental structure? Why didn't they stop and get permission by the Natives before settling in their land?
America was founded by what could be called "illegal" immigration (at least to the Natives). And for what -- to find freedom. How can we put a wall up around a country for the reasons in which it was founded? Still, it became a glorious place where people came to escape the terrors of their own governments and economies. And, eventually the Natives were given reparation for our naughty deed. The federal government now has an obligation to allow and protect tribal reservations and the right for tribes to govern themselves. To say that this reparation makes up for all of the land we took from the Native Americans and all the discrimination they endured is absurd, but I suppose it's a little too late to turn things around now.
I am in no means saying that it's "right" for a Mexican to come into America, let their children use our public school systems, not pay taxes... of course that isn't right. But do we really need to go to the extremes of building a wall around the Land of the Free? Does that actually make sense -- our freedom being protected by a big thick wall? Us treating people who just wanted to escape oppression and poverty as criminals?
Michelle Moses is a Christian, a Libertarian, and an incoming sophmore at her local community college. She can be reached at michellepm@comcast.net
13 Comments:
It is easier to come from Canada, because Canadians are more well educated, and more aware of the way to correctly go about the process.
As far as corporations, the other problem is that the Mexcian government is supplying elaborate fake ID and SS# packages to potential illegals, which makes catching them quite difficult, although I'd admit that if anyone COULD pick out the fakes, corporate background checks would have the best chance. Good luck convincing a court that background checks based on suspected illegal status would mesh with the equal protection status given in the 14th... in fact, they've already said "indepth background checks for everyone, no one, or completely random".
The bottom line, is the bottom line. Businesses don't feel like going overboard and paying a lot to make sure their work is legal, because of things like the WTO and NAFTA making it already difficult to compete in a global scale. There are a lot of complexities to the issue, and pointing the finger at business is a oversimplified (if not Socialist) response to a very deep problem.
Yes, we came into this land. Yes we battled for control. Mexicans come and want to be part of, not to take over. Big difference. Now the fact that some want to change our rules...(could be taken as wanting control) makes that group a foreign threat as the native americans saw us. And so, those few could be considered an enemy. That's the only parallelism I got out of that.
There is no nation that has a policy in support of open borders. When you don't have borders, you aren't a nation.
I didn't think that I was implying that the situation is exactly the same as it was between the Natives and the pilgrims. I just wanted to give a new perspective on the matter of illegal immigration in comparison to what made our nation a nation. It all seems a little hypocritical. I wanted to go a little bit more into the high-security border issue, but honestly, it's finals week and I just don't have time.
And also, I don't think it's fair to write all illegal immigrants off as people who are conciously taking advantage of our already established economy and governmental system. I don't think that that is the case at all. I'm sure if we made it possible for illegal immigrants to pay taxes and the like, the majority would. I'm also pretty darn sure that the majority would go through whatever process it took to gain citizenship or even just a legalized state; the problem is that they illegaly cross the border so to leave Mexico as soon as possible because the process to come legally is too difficult (or not even possible for some). Putting walls and fences up around the border will help to "keep the dogs in their pen," but really, these are people, not dogs.
Kudos Stein.
We may not have to worry about the illegal immigration problem much longer.
"MEXICO CITY - Mexican President Vicente Fox will sign into law a measure that decriminalizes the possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs for personal use, his spokesman said Tuesday."
:P
My whole point was that they AREN'T dogs, Stein. And them coming here illegally shouldn't matter if they do what they need to to be legalized once they get here. The problem usually is that there is nothing that they can do.
And Brando, the pastor at a church I went to prayed during the service that drugs wouldn't be legalized in Mexico, I was a little pissed off about that. Instead I prayed that they would be. :)
Why would you want them to be legalized?
I don't expect anyone to abide by laws, it pretty much takes a saint to not break the laws in America. So does that mean we're all dogs?
Any why not, Brando?
Michelle,
Why not? Because of the obvious affects drugs have on people.
The libertarian view of "let anyone do what they want" falls short when you see the affect drugs have on people and the those around them. Not that I care about Mexico...but with laws like that in affect it would definitely make a negative difference in surrounding countries. (USA, even Canada, etc.,)
Surely you can admit that. I am not questioning your Christianity for that is your life--but do you not see the contradiction in Christianity's view and the Libertarian view.
Brando - I actually thought you were referring to the immigrants. ANYWAY. I think drugs should be legalized because of the obvious effect it would have on the violence rate. Surely you can understand how that would line up with my faith. This is a bit off-topic though.
And stein, I actually don't think that there should be many of the laws that we're questioning, so maybe that's where the problem lies? I admit to being cynical, and I also admit to believing that in certain situations, breaking the law out of concern for family and loved ones is acceptable, especially if no one person or organization is harmed or affected negatively in the process, and that there should at least be a certain level of amnesty given (i.e. the chance to become legalized).
Nice.
Oh an on Mexico and the drugs story...
Looks like Fox does actually have a brain...he decided to use it for once.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-05-04-voa16.cfm
Post a Comment
<< Home