On Apr 27, 9:03*pm, Slim wrote:

You want all the benefits of cheap Mexican labor, but you dont want the
Mexicans.


and they kidnap a bunch of africans and bring them over here to be
slaves, and then complain about the low quality of the folks they
enslaved.

On Apr 27, 11:41*am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"JDH" wrote in message

...

z wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:54 pm, wrote:

I am convinced that immigration, legal and illegal, is the most deadly
threat to the United States. The facts are in and the facts are

cool. so what tribe are you? sioux? cherokee?

There are not indigenous human populations of North America. Even the
"indians" ancestors immigrated here across the land bridge from Siberia..

There is also a US Supreme Court Decision from the 1800s that declares that
anyone born on the continent is a "Native American"

except obama.

Slim wrote:

On 2009-04-27 19:11:43 -0400, "Long Ranger" said:


"Howard Brazee" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:41:33 -0700, "Long Ranger"
wrote:

There are not indigenous human populations of North America. Even the
"indians" ancestors immigrated here across the land bridge from

Siberia.


Plus, we kicked their asses and conquered them, fair and square. Much

like

the Mexicans are doing to us now, only with different methodology.


The Mexicans are conquering us more closely to the same way as the
Polish, Irish, and Italians conquered us a century ago. Except then
the hatred against the immigrants was greater, with a strong anti
Roman-Catholic element.

The result will be the same anyhow.


Not likely. There is a distinct cultural difference, and the numbers are
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher. I'm sure there will be a knee-jerk
reaction by
everyone, but you only need to stop in on East L.A. to have the facts
thrown
in your face. Lots of people hide their spinelessness behind this sort of
equivocating.


You yahoo types are soooo funny.

Look in the kitchen of any restaurant, look who is cutting your grass,
look who is cleaning your homes and raising your children!

You want all the benefits of cheap Mexican labor, but you dont want the
Mexicans.

Hypocrites!


Although many people think that employing an illegal is better than
having a slave, you don't feed them, clothe them or have to be bothered
by injury, sickness and death.

Although those are all good arguments, I disagree, In the long run it
harms the economy, keeps American citizens out of work, and puts an
increasing strain upon our health care and school systems.







--






“Someone said to me, what doesn't kill me makes me stronger,
and my response was, that just means, I need to put more bullet
holes in you!” -- Rev. Shawn Cole

In article t,
"SaPeIsMa" wrote:

There is also a US Supreme Court Decision from the 1800s that declares that
anyone born on the continent is a "Native American"

So that means Mexicans, Canadians, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, etc. are
all Native Americans?

z wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:03 pm, Slim wrote:

You want all the benefits of cheap Mexican labor, but you dont want the
Mexicans.


and they kidnap a bunch of africans and bring them over here to be
slaves, and then complain about the low quality of the folks they
enslaved.


Well, they were the ones who got caught. I suppose
those who got away and weren't captured were smarter?

TDD

Long Ranger wrote:
"Slim" wrote in message
news:2009042721013975249-slim@pickinscom...
On 2009-04-27 11:41:54 -0400, "SaPeIsMa" said:

"JDH" wrote in message
...
z wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:54 pm, wrote:

I am convinced that immigration, legal and illegal, is the most
deadly
threat to the United States. The facts are in and the facts are
cool. so what tribe are you? sioux? cherokee?

There are not indigenous human populations of North America. Even the
"indians" ancestors immigrated here across the land bridge from
Siberia.
There is also a US Supreme Court Decision from the 1800s that declares
that anyone born on the continent is a "Native American"
That same Supreme Court upheld slavery.

So, it follows then, that we should abandon all the decisions of the Supreme
Court? But wait, that would kill the Democratic Party instantly!


Do you mean The Democrat Party? There is nothing democratic
about The Democrat Party.

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
Long Ranger wrote:
"Slim" wrote in message
news:2009042721013975249-slim@pickinscom...
On 2009-04-27 11:41:54 -0400, "SaPeIsMa" said:

"JDH" wrote in message
...
z wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:54 pm, wrote:

I am convinced that immigration, legal and illegal, is the most
deadly
threat to the United States. The facts are in and the facts are
cool. so what tribe are you? sioux? cherokee?

There are not indigenous human populations of North America. Even the
"indians" ancestors immigrated here across the land bridge from
Siberia.
There is also a US Supreme Court Decision from the 1800s that declares
that anyone born on the continent is a "Native American"
That same Supreme Court upheld slavery.

So, it follows then, that we should abandon all the decisions of the
Supreme
Court? But wait, that would kill the Democratic Party instantly!


Do you mean The Democrat Party? There is nothing democratic
about The Democrat Party.

TDD

Quite right, thanks.

The Daring Dufas wrote:
z wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:03 pm, Slim wrote:

You want all the benefits of cheap Mexican labor, but you dont want
the Mexicans.


and they kidnap a bunch of africans and bring them over here to be
slaves, and then complain about the low quality of the folks they
enslaved.


Well, they were the ones who got caught. I suppose
those who got away and weren't captured were smarter?


One interesting question is why Africans weren't raiding the coast of
Portugal and carrying off slaves of their own?

See, there's Africa and there's Africa. One part of Africa built the
pyramids and the Library of Alexandria.

Another part of Africa couldn't even invent the wheel. Or copy it. Or
navigation. Or a written language.

You'd think, that since humans began in the Great Rift Valley, southern
Africans would have a head start with evolution...

On 2009-04-27 22:08:34 -0400, "Long Ranger" said:


"Slim" wrote in message
news:2009042721004316807-slim@pickinscom...
On 2009-04-27 09:41:33 -0400, "Long Ranger" said:


"JDH" wrote in message
...
z wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:54 pm, wrote:

I am convinced that immigration, legal and illegal, is the most
deadly
threat to the United States. The facts are in and the facts are

cool. so what tribe are you? sioux? cherokee?


There are not indigenous human populations of North America. Even the
"indians" ancestors immigrated here across the land bridge from
Siberia.

Plus, we kicked their asses and conquered them, fair and square. Much
like
the Mexicans are doing to us now, only with different methodology.

"Fair and Square"?

What comic books have you been reading?


What, were we supposed to just go carve some bows and arrows out of the
nearest tree and bring our selves down to their level?

We stole the land with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

Not to mention the outright lies and fraud that was perpetrated on the
native Americans.

"FAIR AND SQUARE?" Only in comic books.

http://nativeamericanfirstnationshis...hain_of_abuses

Long

Chain of Abuses
Broken Treaties
© Jeffrey R Gudzune
Mar 31, 2007
Since 1787, over 750 land cessions have been authorized by supposed
mutual compacts. History demostrates there was little that was mutual
about these "treaties."

The long series of land usurpations that would gradually erode Native
American territory began with the slash of a quill pen upon parchment;
a seemingly innocuous sound, but one masking a hidden motive. Though
the United States would employ the resources of its vast military in an
effort to enforce its policy of containing the numerous tribes, each
land cession was made "legal" by a simple piece of paper--a treaty.
This was the weapon employed by a growing nation as it sought the most
expedient means of securing its swelling boarders. The American
government offered recompense, resettlement, and even trade to the
states with which it was dealing in exchange for the lands it intended
to occupy. To many Native Americans, however, selling the land was an
alien concept. The land was elemental; it was as essential to life as
air and could not be owned by anyone. To agree to "give up" all or even
a percentage of the land seemed as absurd as selling the air. It was,
however, through the treaty that the plight of the Native American
began.
In theory, a treaty is a mutual compact between two nations. In
practice, there was nothing mutual about the treaties authorizing land
cessions--and all too often the recompensatory provisions of such
treaties were mitigated before the ink could dry. The treaty system
dates to the colonial period. Native American nations signed compacts
with the English, French, and Dutch settlers and eventually with the
permanent colonies in the years before the American Revolution. After
the French and Indian War, the English government sought to control
colonial expansion into territories west of the Appalachian watershed.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was meant to define the boarders of
colonial America, but it only alienated the colonists. When the
colonies declared independence, they adopted a departmental system to
deal with their Indian neighbors--three superintendencies that answered
to Congress.
To the United States, Native American nations were only de facto
states. In the implementation of its diplomatic policy toward the
Native American population, the United States assumed the role of an
empire over a protectorate. This opened the door for segregation and
near decimation of the Native American population. With its first
treaty with an Indian state in 1778 (with the Lenni Lenape, or Delaware
Indians) through the Treaty of Echota of 1835 (with the Cherokee in
Georgia) the only policy has been removal. This is not to say that the
treaties were one sided. In fact, the American government did provide
recompensatory provisions in exchange for title to Indian lands. Often
a relocation allowance and future payments were given, as in the case
of the controversial Treaty of Echota. However, subsequent acts of
Congress and shifting political winds demuted many such provisions. Why
then were these treaties signed?
Examining the major land cessions from 1784 to 1894, it is clear that
nearly all of these treaties were forced on Native American nations.
Most were negotiated after wars; as in the case of the Treaty of
Greenville (1795), the Treaty of Fort Jackson (1814), and the Treaty of
Fort Armstrong (1832). These wars were started by white settlers
encroaching on Indian lands. Other treaties were brought about by the
demands of the individual states, as with the Treaty of Echota. This
treaty removed the Cherokee from thier territory and resettled them in
a designated Indian Territoy in Oklahoma. They were forced out in a
march that killed over 4000 Cherokee. Following the Civil War, those
nations that had allied with the Confederacy (such as the Cherokee and
Creek) were forced to give up more territory.
By 1890, nearly every Native American nation was reduced to a
reservation. Those that were not relegated to this state were all but
extinct. The consolodation of land was complete. Reservation life did
have its degree of success. Many prospered. It was a hard road, but
they managed to endure. Many more nations suffered for want of funds,
suitable agricultural opportunities, and good leadership. Constant
legal battles to retain what little lands that remained occupied the
Cherokee, Comanche, and Creek nations. The forces of change were
gathering strength, however. The last gasp of those seeking to destroy
the Indian way of life was the Dawes General Allotment Act of
1887--which proposed to break up reservations into 160 acre plots. The
motivation behind this legislation was the end of the concept of Native
American states as nations and thier assimilation into American
culture. Those tribes that accepted this provision faced thier own
legal issues when the Curtis Act of 1898 attemtped to dissolve thier
governments. Native sovereignty would have dissapeared were it not for
the efforts of John Collier, who, as Commissioner of Indian Affiars,
brought pressure on Congress to pass legislation that enumerated the
rights of Native Americans. The result was the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934, the provisions of which restored native lands, provided
better medical services to reservations, and encouraged the development
of business opportunities. This sins of the past were not wiped clean,
but finally the Native American nation was secured under the laws of
the United States. With a renewed status, many nations went about the
task of rebuilding a proud heritage that is so much a part of this
nation...this nation of many nations.

Read mo
http://nativeamericanfirstnationshis...xzz0DzNXKq6q&B

--


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

(SNIP)
There are not indigenous human populations of North America. Even the
"indians" ancestors immigrated here across the land bridge from
Siberia.

Plus, we kicked their asses and conquered them, fair and square. Much
like
the Mexicans are doing to us now, only with different methodology.

"Fair and Square"?

What comic books have you been reading?


What, were we supposed to just go carve some bows and arrows out of the
nearest tree and bring our selves down to their level?

We stole the land with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

Not to mention the outright lies and fraud that was perpetrated on the
native Americans.

"FAIR AND SQUARE?" Only in comic books.


http://nativeamericanfirstnationshis...hain_of_abuses

Long

Chain of Abuses
Broken Treaties
© Jeffrey R Gudzune


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Mar 31, 2007
Since 1787, over 750 land cessions have been authorized by supposed
mutual compacts. History demostrates there was little that was mutual
about these "treaties."

The long series of land usurpations that would gradually erode Native
American territory began with the slash of a quill pen upon parchment;
a seemingly innocuous sound, but one masking a hidden motive. Though
the United States would employ the resources of its vast military in an
effort to enforce its policy of containing the numerous tribes, each
land cession was made "legal" by a simple piece of paper--a treaty.
This was the weapon employed by a growing nation as it sought the most
expedient means of securing its swelling boarders. The American
government offered recompense, resettlement, and even trade to the
states with which it was dealing in exchange for the lands it intended
to occupy. To many Native Americans, however, selling the land was an
alien concept. The land was elemental; it was as essential to life as
air and could not be owned by anyone. To agree to "give up" all or even
a percentage of the land seemed as absurd as selling the air. It was,
however, through the treaty that the plight of the Native American
began.
In theory, a treaty is a mutual compact between two nations. In
practice, there was nothing mutual about the treaties authorizing land
cessions--and all too often the recompensatory provisions of such
treaties were mitigated before the ink could dry. The treaty system
dates to the colonial period. Native American nations signed compacts
with the English, French, and Dutch settlers and eventually with the
permanent colonies in the years before the American Revolution. After
the French and Indian War, the English government sought to control
colonial expansion into territories west of the Appalachian watershed.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was meant to define the boarders of
colonial America, but it only alienated the colonists. When the
colonies declared independence, they adopted a departmental system to
deal with their Indian neighbors--three superintendencies that answered
to Congress.
To the United States, Native American nations were only de facto
states. In the implementation of its diplomatic policy toward the
Native American population, the United States assumed the role of an
empire over a protectorate. This opened the door for segregation and
near decimation of the Native American population. With its first
treaty with an Indian state in 1778 (with the Lenni Lenape, or Delaware
Indians) through the Treaty of Echota of 1835 (with the Cherokee in
Georgia) the only policy has been removal. This is not to say that the
treaties were one sided. In fact, the American government did provide
recompensatory provisions in exchange for title to Indian lands. Often
a relocation allowance and future payments were given, as in the case
of the controversial Treaty of Echota. However, subsequent acts of
Congress and shifting political winds demuted many such provisions. Why
then were these treaties signed?
Examining the major land cessions from 1784 to 1894, it is clear that
nearly all of these treaties were forced on Native American nations.
Most were negotiated after wars; as in the case of the Treaty of
Greenville (1795), the Treaty of Fort Jackson (1814), and the Treaty of
Fort Armstrong (1832). These wars were started by white settlers
encroaching on Indian lands. Other treaties were brought about by the
demands of the individual states, as with the Treaty of Echota. This
treaty removed the Cherokee from thier territory and resettled them in
a designated Indian Territoy in Oklahoma. They were forced out in a
march that killed over 4000 Cherokee. Following the Civil War, those
nations that had allied with the Confederacy (such as the Cherokee and
Creek) were forced to give up more territory.
By 1890, nearly every Native American nation was reduced to a
reservation. Those that were not relegated to this state were all but
extinct. The consolodation of land was complete. Reservation life did
have its degree of success. Many prospered. It was a hard road, but
they managed to endure. Many more nations suffered for want of funds,
suitable agricultural opportunities, and good leadership. Constant
legal battles to retain what little lands that remained occupied the
Cherokee, Comanche, and Creek nations. The forces of change were
gathering strength, however. The last gasp of those seeking to destroy
the Indian way of life was the Dawes General Allotment Act of
1887--which proposed to break up reservations into 160 acre plots. The
motivation behind this legislation was the end of the concept of Native
American states as nations and thier assimilation into American
culture. Those tribes that accepted this provision faced thier own
legal issues when the Curtis Act of 1898 attemtped to dissolve thier
governments. Native sovereignty would have dissapeared were it not for
the efforts of John Collier, who, as Commissioner of Indian Affiars,
brought pressure on Congress to pass legislation that enumerated the
rights of Native Americans. The result was the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934, the provisions of which restored native lands, provided
better medical services to reservations, and encouraged the development
of business opportunities. This sins of the past were not wiped clean,
but finally the Native American nation was secured under the laws of
the United States. With a renewed status, many nations went about the
task of rebuilding a proud heritage that is so much a part of this
nation...this nation of many nations.

Read mo

http://nativeamericanfirstnationshis...xzz0DzNXKq6q&B


Only a country rube is unfamiliar with this story. Basically, what it says
is that we didn't have the courage of our own convictions and we had to do
what we did in a back-handed way. Plus, we quit before we were done and
ended up setting the stage for sovereign nations within our nation, and for
some reason I can't fathom, an indian gambling concession that stretches
nearly coast to coast.