On 6/28/2010 12:22 AM, ? wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:13 pm, wrote:
On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:
when do you think all this started?

With the Mayflower.

The Mayflower colonists were English subjects who voyaged to "Northern
Virginia" under a charter from King James.

They were never "immigrants" into any established country, because
there were no established governments in the region, just wandering
savage tribes who did not understand the concept of real estate or
land ownership.

This is stupid. They left Europe. Redefining immigration as only
being into an "established country" is nonsensical.

According to the extant doctrines of European law, any uncivilized
territory could be claimed for king and country by any explorer
sailing under the flag of his country.

I guess you also think the Holy Roman Empire was a monolithic entity.

And that's what happened. There were no cities and no civilization
along the east coast.

The Mayflower colonists never left the territory of the British empire
and they took English law to Massachusetts with them, in the form of a
governor appointed by the king.

Mike asked where it all started. The real answer is probably when
hominids expanded outwards from the region of their origin in
Africa.

Or did you want to chase this back to a time before primates?

On 6/28/2010 8:27 AM, S'mee wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:13 pm, wrote:
On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:

you and other proto crypto dimwits ought to check out Reagan on immigration.

Reagan screwed up more than immigration. If you look closely enough
I don't think you'll find any president who didn't make some
significant bad calls.

when do you think all this started?

With the Mayflower.

Nope goes back further.

...but that's okay it's the lack of an education system in america
that is at fault...so blame your parents for not voting for more mil
levies and demanding education not indoctrination.

Are you this much of a jackass in real life, or do you save your
stupidity for usenet?

On Jun 28, 6:44*am, purple wrote:
On 6/28/2010 12:22 AM, ? wrote:
They were never "immigrants" into any established country, because
there were no established governments in the region, just wandering
savage tribes who did not understand the concept of real estate or
land ownership.

This is stupid. They left Europe.

The American colonists were English citizens and they continued to
look to England for governance for 150 years. Well-to-do American
colonists travelled back and forth on business and pleasure.

The fact that the English governor of any of the 13 colonies was an
appointee began to annoy the colonists, who wanted equal represenation
in parliament back home in England.

The phrase, "all men are created equal," was never intended by the
Declaration of Independence Commitee to refer to *racial equality*, it
was about *political equality* back home in England, where other
wealthy English landowners *were* represented in parliament.

Redefining immigration as only
being into an "established country" is nonsensical.

Look up "immigrant" in your dictionary and you'll find that the word
didn't enter the English language until 1790, when the first
immigration law was written in the USA.

The purpose of America's first immigration law was to keep out
undesireables who were not free White men of good character like the
Founding Fathers.

I guess you also think the Holy Roman Empire was a monolithic entity.

I think that the HRE is outside the boundaries of the discussion of
immigration.

Mike asked where it all started. The real answer is probably when
hominids expanded outwards from the region of their origin in
Africa.

Or did you want to chase this back to a time before primates?

I don't want to chase this issue into any mental territory inhabited
by radical liberals who seek to change the USA from the land of
unrestricted capitalism to the land of socialist redistribution.

On 6/28/2010 9:46 AM, purple wrote:
On 6/28/2010 8:27 AM, S'mee wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:13 pm, wrote:
On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:

you and other proto crypto dimwits ought to check out Reagan on
immigration.

Reagan screwed up more than immigration. If you look closely enough
I don't think you'll find any president who didn't make some
significant bad calls.

when do you think all this started?

With the Mayflower.

Nope goes back further.

...but that's okay it's the lack of an education system in america
that is at fault...

Looks like it's the abundance of Government education, more than ever in
history and the failure of America is more than ever before.

On 6/28/2010 9:42 AM, ? wrote:
On Jun 28, 6:44 am, wrote:
On 6/28/2010 12:22 AM, ? wrote:

Mike asked where it all started. The real answer is probably when
hominids expanded outwards from the region of their origin in
Africa.

Or did you want to chase this back to a time before primates?

I don't want to chase this issue into any mental territory inhabited
by radical liberals who seek to change the USA from the land of
unrestricted capitalism to the land of socialist redistribution.

I'm a conservative and a capitalist and a realist who knows that
unrestricted capitalism doesn't work. There have to be ground
rules that make it work. Read Hayek's _The Road to Serfdom_
and perhaps you'll begin to understand something.

On 6/28/2010 9:55 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 6/28/2010 9:46 AM, purple wrote:
On 6/28/2010 8:27 AM, S'mee wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:13 pm, wrote:
On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:

you and other proto crypto dimwits ought to check out Reagan on
immigration.

Reagan screwed up more than immigration. If you look closely enough
I don't think you'll find any president who didn't make some
significant bad calls.

when do you think all this started?

With the Mayflower.

Nope goes back further.

...but that's okay it's the lack of an education system in america
that is at fault...

Looks like it's the abundance of Government education, more than ever in
history and the failure of America is more than ever before.

The American public educational system was begun to get children out of
the "box factories" of New England. It was continued, under Dewey's
tutelage, as a means to "make good citizens." That means you don't want
the general public too smart or learned.

On Jun 28, 8:42*am, purple wrote:


I don't want to chase this issue into any mental territory inhabited
by radical liberals who seek to change the USA from the land of
unrestricted capitalism to the land of socialist redistribution.

I'm a conservative and a capitalist and a realist who knows that
unrestricted capitalism doesn't work. There have to be ground
rules that make it work. Read Hayek's _The Road to Serfdom_
and perhaps you'll begin to understand something.

Not likely.

The post you were replying to was from "Krusty"; a constantly morphing
toy-Nazi troll who refers to anyone who doesn't actually goose-step or
want to re-institute slavery as a "radical liberal". But welcome to
the commune anyway, tovarisch!

We conservative capitalist realists have to stick together, since
there don't seem to be too many of us left.

"purple" wrote in message
...
On 6/26/2010 5:58 PM, ? wrote:

No other country would dream of offering citizenship to unskilled
immigrant workers, they want them to pick the crops and then *GO HOME*
afterwards.

Dems want to grant citizenship in exchange for votes.


Even NYC mayor Bloomberg was on TV news the other day saying that
green cards should be given to foreign entrepreneurs who employ 10
Americans and that they could keep their green cards as long as they
kept the Americans employed.


Bloomberg always was and will always be a 1st class idiot. Any foreign
entrepreneur worth their salt will put their employment money where it
gets the best return, and that's *not* in the USA. And if someone has
that kind of money they certainly don't need to beg for US citizenship.

Really?

Tell that to the guy who became a US citizen so that he could own the Fox TV
stations.

In practice, my understanding that it's pretty easy for the "Super Rich" to
"buy" US Citizenship.

The Swiss also do this. The Swiss are very practical people: rather than
have the applicant promise to hire so many people or "invest," they simply
demand $100k + up front.

The US should do the same thing.

"purple" wrote in message
...
On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:
you and other proto crypto dimwits ought to check out Reagan on
immigration.

Reagan screwed up more than immigration. If you look closely enough
I don't think you'll find any president who didn't make some
significant bad calls.

Ike's administration understood the problem.

There was a program in place to import seasonal workers from Mexico and send
them back home when the crop was in.

When too many illegals cross the border with Mexico, he instituted "Project
Wetback" to reduce the flow.

The JFK administration decided to open the gates to legals and illegals.

It cut back the programs that provided for seasonal workers (it was
"demeaning" to the Mexicans) and, thus, created a BIG demand for the
illegals.


when do you think all this started?

The "modern" problem required a modern economy. In the 18th Century, for
example, the idea of masses of "seasonal workers" could not have been made
to work.

But even in colonial times, folks were suspecious of too many "new" people
who were like themselves. Xenophobia has been around for a long time and
with good reason.

On 6/29/2010 9:57 AM, John Gilmer wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/26/2010 5:58 PM, ? wrote:

No other country would dream of offering citizenship to unskilled
immigrant workers, they want them to pick the crops and then *GO HOME*
afterwards.

Dems want to grant citizenship in exchange for votes.


Even NYC mayor Bloomberg was on TV news the other day saying that
green cards should be given to foreign entrepreneurs who employ 10
Americans and that they could keep their green cards as long as they
kept the Americans employed.


Bloomberg always was and will always be a 1st class idiot. Any foreign
entrepreneur worth their salt will put their employment money where it
gets the best return, and that's *not* in the USA. And if someone has
that kind of money they certainly don't need to beg for US citizenship.

Really?

Tell that to the guy who became a US citizen so that he could own the Fox TV
stations.

In practice, my understanding that it's pretty easy for the "Super Rich" to
"buy" US Citizenship.

Precisely what I said. Someone with money doesn't have to beg for
US citizenship.


The Swiss also do this. The Swiss are very practical people: rather than
have the applicant promise to hire so many people or "invest," they simply
demand $100k + up front.

The US should do the same thing.