Immigration and Indian Identity

[Agnapostate]

My belief is that there are two central lines of ethical argument about the topic of illegal immigration; the utilitarian line of argument and the deontological line of argument. These lines of argument also characterize applied ethics more generally. The utilitarian line of argument is primarily based on the consequences of illegal immigration, namely its impact on social welfare. The deontological line of argument is primarily based on the fact that regardless of consequences, the territory of the United States is the property of the citizens of the United States, and foreign nationals can legitimately be excluded for any reason that the citizens (or ruling political administration) of the United States sees fit.

I wish to address the “deontologist” argument against illegal immigration, incorporating the essential fact that the majority of illegal immigrants from Latin America are descendants of Native Americans in full or in part and advancing a strong libertarian argument that aggression is illegitimate.

We must note that American territory and resources were not justly acquired. The Americas were seized from their indigenous inhabitants by means of force and fraud after infectious plagues devastated their population numbers to a catastrophic extent. The existing states in North and South America (and surrounding portions of the Western Hemisphere) are all illegitimate social institutions built upon unjust aggression, and the national divisions between them are therefore similarly illegitimate.

Moreover, since the majority of the Mexican population and effectively all of the lower classes of the Mexican population are descendants of the indigenous peoples of Mexico in full or part, they have been adversely affected by the establishment of the state of Mexico, which is ruled by a political system that places white elites (primarily of Spanish descent) at the top of the social hierarchy and the indigenous majority at the bottom. This is paralleled in other Latin American countries that Indians emigrate from. Guatemala, if legitimately democratic, would be a Mayan republic.

It would be simplistic and inaccurate to say "Most Mexicans (and effectively all Mexican illegal immigrants) are Indians; therefore, since America (the continent pair) was stolen from Indians, all of it must be given back." Amerindians are not and never were a homogenous socio-cultural group; they are a race with various national and cultural divisions, just as Europeans were and are. Moreover, while Indian nations obviously did not organize themselves according to current national boundaries and plenty of groups existed on both sides of the modern U.S.-Mexico border (such as the Apache, or in modern times the Tohono O'odham), most of the Indians of Mexico have little ancestral claim to lands in the present day U.S., since the majority are from the southern portion of Mexico in Mesoamerica, which is quite geographically disconnected from the U.S. And the Indians of Central and South America have effectively no ancestral claim over modern U.S. lands whatsoever.

However, the division of American territory into modern states had profound impacts on the indigenous populations of those various states. The development of America in the absence of European intervention would likely have ultimately entailed a confederation of Indian nations similar to the union that currently exists between European nations, given the divisions of natural resource endowments and technological innovation (such as the absence of draft animals in most of America and the presence of the wheel in a region where they did not exist) and the need to cooperate. But even if America had become inhabited by a collection of constantly warring dictatorial states in the absence of European intervention, that did not occur. Rather, Anglo and Hispanic supremacy and the establishment of Anglo and Hispanic states occurred. So we still must consider the wants of the indigenous population of the United States and the nations that characterize their political organization, such as the Cherokee, the Navajo, etc. Since almost all natives endured universal dispossession, there has been a creation of pan-Indian sentiment that did not previously exist. An Iroquois can sympathize with a Cherokee, who can sympathize with a Blackfoot, who can sympathize with a Serrano, who can sympathize with a Huichol, who can sympathize with a Tzotzil, who can sympathize with an Inca or Aymara, etc. Their nations all underwent the same unjust dispossession at one point or another. It is for that reason that I do not believe that the Indian nations of America would choose to exclude each other.

In realistic terms? The nation-states of the Americas are here to stay for a while. It is not feasible to return them to the administrative control of Indian nations and the descendants of the original indigenous population. But considering the fact that the unjust acquisition of the territory and resources therein is a matter of historical fact and given that this continues to affect the modern population of America (affecting the indigenous population of America particularly brutally), it is foolish and delusional to pretend that the political administration of the U.S. has, on deontological grounds, an ethical right to restrict the immigration of persons of indigenous descent from Latin America, or that the political administration of Mexico has an ethical right to restrict the immigration of persons of indigenous descent from Central America. Whether this should be done because of the consequences is a far more relevant issue and promises to be a far more fruitful topic of discussion. The premise of there being a sound deontological case, however, is entirely without merit.

[HogTrash]

"Most Mexicans (and effectively all Mexican illegal immigrants) are Indians; therefore, since America (the continent pair) was stolen from Indians, all of it must be given back."No one cares Aggy...Most of the lands in the world were taken from someone by someone else.

This has been a common practice since the beginning of mankind...To the victor goes the spoils.

The conquerer shall prevail while the conquered and his lands and properties will be at his mercy.

The borders have long been established and there is nothing you can do about it, so deal with it.

[Agnapostate]

No one cares Aggy...Most of the lands in the world were taken from someone by someone else.

This has been a common practice since the beginning of mankind...To the victor goes the spoils.

The conquerer shall prevail while the conquered and his lands and properties will be at his mercy.

The borders have long been established and there is nothing you can do about it, so deal with it.

If you're a social Darwinist, why complain of the fact that millions of Indians from other countries now reside in the U.S.? To the victor goes the spoils; they crossed and are here, defying the laws established to prohibit their presence. If you can propose deporting them, why is it not logically consistent for me to propose repatriating you to Europe? If one battle is not done, then why not another?

[HogTrash]

If you're a social Darwinist, why complain of the fact that millions of Indians from other countries now reside in the U.S.? To the victor goes the spoils; they crossed and are here, defying the laws established to prohibit their presence. If you can propose deporting them, why is it not logically consistent for me to propose repatriating you to Europe? If one battle is not done, then why not another?True, but they are only here at the whim of corrupt politicians and corporations which is subject to change.

I keep giving you chances but you never manage to surprise me with some spark of intelligence.

I'm sorry Aggy, But you're simply not smart enough for me to be wasting my time on.

[Agnapostate]

True, but they are only here at the whim of corrupt politicians and corporations which is subject to change.

I keep giving you chances but you never manage to surprise me with some spark of intelligence.

I'm sorry Aggy, But you're simply not smart enough for me to be wasting my time on.

And you are only here at the whim of oppressed indigenous masses which is subject to change.

Accept that you cannot provide ethical justification for what you call "conquest." Stating that it occurred and that such practices always occur is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It seems you're not clever enough to have heard of the is-ought problem.

[glockmail]

LOL these weak cultures lost their land centuries ago and are going to take it back now? :lol:

[Agnapostate]

LOL these weak cultures lost their land centuries ago and are going to take it back now? :lol:

You are deluded by Eurocentric misconceptions. 90 to 95% of the indigenous population in some areas was devastated by infectious plague, and here you are pretending that the vulture who picked at their bones is a war hawk who singlehandedly slew them? :laugh:

But you're off-topic regardless. If an armed gang came to your house and robbed you, the question would not be whether they could, but whether it was moral for them to do so. You have no understanding of ethics.

[Trigg]

If you're a social Darwinist, why complain of the fact that millions of Indians from other countries now reside in the U.S.? To the victor goes the spoils; they crossed and are here, defying the laws established to prohibit their presence. If you can propose deporting them, why is it not logically consistent for me to propose repatriating you to Europe? If one battle is not done, then why not another?

He's not suggesting they be deported, that is already happening. If anyone wants to come to this, or any other country. THEY NEED TO DO SO LEGALLY.

No one gives a shit if they're indian/white/black or asian. No one cares what country their ancesters originally came from. IF THEY'RE ILLEGAL THEY NEED TO LEAVE.

[glockmail]

You are deluded by Eurocentric misconceptions. 90 to 95% of the indigenous population in some areas was devastated by infectious plague, and here you are pretending that the vulture who picked at their bones is a war hawk who singlehandedly slew them? :laugh:

But you're off-topic regardless. If an armed gang came to your house and robbed you, the question would not be whether they could, but whether it was moral for them to do so. You have no understanding of ethics.

One one hand you admit that these native cultures were annihilated by their weakness against natural causes and then on the other hand you call Europeans immoral for picking up the pieces and building a stronger culture. :laugh2:

[Agnapostate]

He's not suggesting they be deported, that is already happening. If anyone wants to come to this, or any other country. THEY NEED TO DO SO LEGALLY.

No one gives a shit if they're indian/white/black or asian. No one cares what country their ancesters originally came from. IF THEY'RE ILLEGAL THEY NEED TO LEAVE.

This is question begging; an unsupported assumption that the law is necessarily ethical in nature. Since legal and ethical standards are sharply divergent, as I've mentioned time and time again (slavery was legal but not ethical; slave libertarion was illegal but ethical), there needs to be an explicit ethical justification for laws, or there is no moral obligation to obey them. Since the current territorial divisions were established through acts of force and fraud against existing Indian nations, they are ethically illegitimate.


One one hand you admit that these native cultures were annihilated by their weakness against natural causes and then on the other hand you call Europeans immoral for picking up the pieces and building a stronger culture. :laugh2:

I said that their population numbers were devastated because of their lack of previous exposure to European diseases (this was because of the lack of domesticated animals in America compared to Europe and the consequent absence of proximity to such animals). I said that various European colonists were immoral for their deeds against the survivors, which included enslavement, forcible dispossession, fraudulent exploitation (i.e. broken treaties and financial theft), and genocide. That's the basis for my assertion that the various nation-states established by European colonization have no ethical legitimacy.

[Trigg]

let us know when you get tired of beating this particular dead horse.

[Agnapostate]

You'll have to win the argument first. You're not able to.

[Trigg]

You'll have to win the argument first. You're not able to.

I'll let you in on a little secret, you aren't either. :laugh2:

[Agnapostate]

I'll let you in on a little secret, you aren't either. :laugh2:

I am, but this field of inquiry doesn't particularly interest me. I'm interested in debates about the consequences of immigration, and whether it should be permitted or restricted on those grounds. But the "argument from sovereignty" falls flat if sovereignty was established as a result of unjust acquisition, which renders it ethically illegitimate. So I'd recommend not screaming "THIS IS OUR COUNTRY; WE'LL RESTRICT WHO WE WANT!" and instead focusing on the consequences.

[jimnyc]

You'll have to win the argument first. You're not able to.

No need to even argue, laws are laws. If I find out anyone is illegally here, I report them ASAP and follow up on it until they are incarcerated or deported. You can argue until your fingers bleed but it won't make anything legal, and you and your fellow beaners will still have to look for work on a street corner and look over your shoulder for the INS. So no matter how good you feel your arguments may be, it won't stop the deportations of those here illegally.

[Agnapostate]

No need to even argue, laws are laws. If I find out anyone is illegally here, I report them ASAP and follow up on it until they are incarcerated or deported. You can argue until your fingers bleed but it won't make anything legal, and you and your fellow beaners will still have to look for work on a street corner and look over your shoulder for the INS. So no matter how good you feel your arguments may be, it won't stop the deportations of those here illegally.

Who gives a shit? Slavery was legal too.

Incidentally, beaners are Mexicans. I am not a Mexican. I am not a beaner. These are beaners:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Mexican_Girls.jpg

I'm not one. I know you just shipped in from some Munich slum, kraut, but learn your terminology.

[jimnyc]

Who gives a shit? Slavery was legal too.

Incidentally, beaners are Mexicans. I am not a Mexican. I am not a beaner. These are beaners:

I'm not one. I know you just shipped in from some Munich slum, kraut, but learn your terminology.

Laws are laws, your arguments mean zip. Either enter legally or face the consequences of their crimes.

And you keep posting that picture as if 3 girls proves anything. Can you even PROVE that they are Mexicans and not just 3 girls enjoying a street fair somewhere? I know plenty of people who outdo themselves with all kinds of green and Irish stuff on Saint Patrick's Day, and they aren;t in the slightest bit Irish.

[jimnyc]

Btw - I've seen your picture, you ARE a girly beaner!

[hjmick]

...I know plenty of people who outdo themselves with all kinds of green and Irish stuff on Saint Patrick's Day, and they aren;t in the slightest bit Irish.

I hate those guys.

[jimnyc]

I hate those guys.

Me too, I wear all black on that day, but I do enjoy the beer!

[Agnapostate]

Laws are laws, your arguments mean zip. Either enter legally or face the consequences of their crimes.

LOL, so the attitude toward slavery in 1855 would be the same? :laugh:


And you keep posting that picture as if 3 girls proves anything. Can you even PROVE that they are Mexicans and not just 3 girls enjoying a street fair somewhere? I know plenty of people who outdo themselves with all kinds of green and Irish stuff on Saint Patrick's Day, and they aren;t in the slightest bit Irish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mexican_Girls.jpg

They're from Jalisco, you moron, a predominantly white state. Hell, at first I thought you were just trolling me, but since you attempted to respond seriously here, you seem to actually think that I'm "Mexican" and that "Mexican" means something "non-white." Goddamn, you're stupid! Did the national language being Spanish not tip you off? :lol:

[Jeff]

I hate those guys.

Last time i even thought of that , I drank green beer all night, lol, not a good idea

[jimnyc]

LOL, so the attitude toward slavery in 1855 would be the same?

Comparing apples and oranges won't get you far. Blacks didn't commit crimes to become slaves.




(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mexican_Girls.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mexican_Girls.jpg

They're from Jalisco, you moron, a predominantly white state. Hell, at first I thought you were just trolling me, but since you attempted to respond seriously here, you seem to actually think that I'm "Mexican" and that "Mexican" means something "non-white." Goddamn, you're stupid! Did the national language being Spanish not tip you off? :lol:

You'll need to do better than a wiki article to prove that picture, for all we know your little beaner ass uploaded it there!

[hjmick]

Last time i even thought of that , I drank green beer all night, lol, not a good idea

Yeah, we drink Guinness and leave the green beer to everyone else. Now the secret is out.

[Agnapostate]

Comparing apples and oranges won't get you far. Blacks didn't commit crimes to become slaves.

Are you a moron? Our focus is on the divergence between legal and ethical standards. The point was that the law and the moral standard can be at odds, not the specific contents of those things.


You'll need to do better than a wiki article to prove that picture, for all we know your little beaner ass uploaded it there!

Holy shit, you're fucking dumb. Are you actually suggesting that there aren't millions of Mexican whites? :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mexicans

BTW, "prove that I'm Mexican." :laugh:

[jimnyc]

BTW, "prove that I'm Mexican." :laugh:

YOU already did that for us when you posted your picture, beaner girly.

[Agnapostate]

No response to the Wiki article, I see. Is it slowly starting to sink in to your thick skull that you've been spewing nonsense about Mexico? ;)


YOU already did that for us when you posted your picture, beaner girly.

By all means, explain for us how you can discern the nationality of someone by their appearance, kraut.

[jimnyc]

No response to the Wiki article, I see. Is it slowly starting to sink in to your thick skull that you've been spewing nonsense about Mexico? ;)

By all means, explain for us how you can discern the nationality of someone by their appearance, kraut.

Nope, I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a beaner AND a female in disguise.

Now talk to yourself while I go have your relatives make me some dinner at Taco Bell. Adios!

[Agnapostate]

Nope, I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a beaner AND a female in disguise.

Now talk to yourself while I go have your relatives make me some dinner at Taco Bell. Adios!

If you're just trolling me, I hardly give a shit. If you're stupid enough to believe that Mexico is somehow a thoroughly non-white country when its national language is from the spics, you're just a moron. :laugh:

[glockmail]

...
I said that their population numbers were devastated because of their lack of previous exposure to European diseases (this was because of the lack of domesticated animals in America compared to Europe and the consequent absence of proximity to such animals). I said that various European colonists were immoral for their deeds against the survivors, which included enslavement, forcible dispossession, fraudulent exploitation (i.e. broken treaties and financial theft), and genocide. That's the basis for my assertion that the various nation-states established by European colonization have no ethical legitimacy.

So basically you agree with me that the natives were genetically inferior, and now you admit culturally and technologically inferior as well.

[Agnapostate]

So basically you agree with me that the natives were genetically inferior, and now you admit culturally and technologically inferior as well.

You might pick up that impression if you've been watching Avatar after a heroin binge, but some of us try to stay within the confines of reality. I mean, seriously? Lack of exposure to infectious disease because of the accidental lack of domesticated animals is a basis for genetic inferiority? I guess I can see why you're a creationist. :laugh:

[glockmail]

You might pick up that impression if you've been watching Avatar after a heroin binge, but some of us try to stay within the confines of reality. I mean, seriously? Lack of exposure to infectious disease because of the accidental lack of domesticated animals is a basis for genetic inferiority? I guess I can see why you're a creationist. :laugh:

"[A]ccidental lack of domesticated animals"?:lol: :lol:

Who created the "accident"?

I'm also referring, of course, to the penchant for European tribes to wage war, kill the weak males, and take their tall, strong, good looking women for prizes, thus strengthening the gene pool.

[Agnapostate]

Who created the "accident"?

The Good Lord, evidently, since draft animals such as horses and oxen aren't native to America, yet are present in Europe.


I'm also referring, of course, to the penchant for European tribes to wage war, kill the weak males, and take their tall, strong, good looking women for prizes, thus strengthening the gene pool.

Cite peer-reviewed empirical research that supports the statement that genetic superiority created through such breeding practices was a significant factor in the victory of any European group in America. Inasmuch as it was primarily a victory of germs and other natives more than anything else, you won't be able to.

[glockmail]

The Good Lord, evidently, since draft animals such as horses and oxen aren't native to America, yet are present in Europe.



Cite peer-reviewed empirical research that supports the statement that genetic superiority created through such breeding practices was a significant factor in the victory of any European group in America. Inasmuch as it was primarily a victory of germs and other natives more than anything else, you won't be able to.

Yet He did provide y'all with deer, rabbits, ducks, geese, bison and turkey, which the European ancestry successfully domesticates today.

Europeans bred what we now know as dogs, cats, cows, sheep, goats, horses, pigs and other domestic animals from wild stock for specific genetic traits, health and disease resistance, as well as thousands of varieties of plants. This is all well documented in the historic record, as well as the facts of tribal warfare and pillage. It not a stretch at all to suggest that the best fighters would select the healthiest women, and the outcomes of these pairings are obvious. You would be hard pressed to find a anthropologist to suggest otherwise.

The fact is that isolation and inbreeding probably led to the demise of your culture, making it more susceptible to disease then your European counterparts.

[AllieBaba]

Inbreeding is a huge problem for American Indians, since they have to meet blood quotas to obtain enrollment..since there aren't many Indians, this is a problem. We see genetic health issues popping up more and more in the Indian population because of it.

[HogTrash]

And you are only here at the whim of oppressed indigenous masses which is subject to change.

Accept that you cannot provide ethical justification for what you call "conquest." Stating that it occurred and that such practices always occur is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It seems you're not clever enough to have heard of the is-ought problem.You poor confused little brown boy...Your arguments are rediculously foolish.

Your siberian ancestors are no more "indiginous" to the Americas than are the white europeans.

They just got here a little sooner than europeans and there is evidence suggesting that is even debatable.

[glockmail]

I notice Beaner hasn't been here to defend himself, instead trading boyish insults with Jimmy. I guess he finds my argument a tad too difficult to refute.

[DragonStryk72]

This is question begging; an unsupported assumption that the law is necessarily ethical in nature. Since legal and ethical standards are sharply divergent, as I've mentioned time and time again (slavery was legal but not ethical; slave libertarion was illegal but ethical), there needs to be an explicit ethical justification for laws, or there is no moral obligation to obey them. Since the current territorial divisions were established through acts of force and fraud against existing Indian nations, they are ethically illegitimate.

Actually, morality is not involved in either illegal or legal immigration, voiding your OP, pretty much, except you keep wanting to argue about it. We have many non-ethical laws, such as our laws allowing voting, since votes are neither moral or immoral of themselves, and as well our laws regarding free access to firearms, which are based around the need to have a well-regulated militia. Every single nation on the earth has laws like these, and others, that are ethically based.

The laws concerning immigration in this country are set due to a need to control the influx of people into the country, because in truth we cannot allow everyone in the world who feels like coming here in, because we would overpopulate, starve and die.

[HogTrash]

Actually, morality is not involved in either illegal or legal immigration, voiding your OP, pretty much, except you keep wanting to argue about it. We have many non-ethical laws, such as our laws allowing voting, since votes are neither moral or immoral of themselves, and as well our laws regarding free access to firearms, which are based around the need to have a well-regulated militia. Every single nation on the earth has laws like these, and others, that are ethically based.

The laws concerning immigration in this country are set due to a need to control the influx of people into the country, because in truth we cannot allow everyone in the world who feels like coming here in, because we would overpopulate, starve and die.LOL!...The blue speaks volumes.

So our Founding Fathers never intended for ordinary average everyday law-abiding American citizens to own a firearm, unless they're a member of a "well-regulated militia"?

People who mostly lived in secluded rural areas without law enforcement, with the threat of wild animals, outlaws and indian attacks and who depended on hunting for sustinance?

Colonials who showed up with their own guns to fight a war of independence, who you claim would knowingly have to surrender those guns to their new government if they won?

OMG!

I will never understand why people would voluntarily choose to disregard common sense as their number one mental thought process for reaching a logical, rational conclusion?

Do you people just blindly accept everything your liberal, progressive party leaders and marxist professors tell you without question?...You poor ignorant simple minded puppets.

[DragonStryk72]

LOL!...The blue speaks volumes.

So our Founding Fathers never intended for ordinary average everyday law-abiding American citizens to own a firearm, unless they're a member of a "well-regulated militia"?

People who mostly lived in secluded rural areas without law enforcement, with the threat of wild animals, outlaws and indian attacks and who depended on hunting for sustinance?

Colonials who showed up with their own guns to fight a war of independence, who you claim would knowingly have to surrender those guns to their new government if they won?

OMG!

I will never understand why people would voluntarily choose to disregard common sense as their number one mental thought process for reaching a logical, rational conclusion?

Do you people just blindly accept everything your liberal, progressive party leaders and marxist professors tell you without question?...You poor ignorant simple minded puppets.

I was particularly going by the wording used in the Constitution to shut up AP. I've noticed AP stops whenever the bubble gets burst, and I was hoping to get this discussion off my new posts screen quickly.

Yes, it is common sense to allow the ownership of firearms, as it decreases crime significantly. Look at Canada and England, where their crime rates shot up dramatically when people were relieved of their firearms, and especially in Canada where stabbings went up a commensurate amount after the guns were taken away.

However, i do believe that we do need a well-regulated militia as well, because frankly, it's also just good common sense. They're even sending National Guard now over to fight wars in other countries, and that's many more soldiers not here defending this one in case of an attack from outside.