Well, many of us are here because we are descended from people who did not ‘do it the right way’. Not that past sins mean new ones should be overlooked.
Prove your claim KT.
Sil wrote
No, people like you are screwing up my country and the world.
Was it done “the right way” when Europeans sailed over the Atlantic, landed in the US and started living there just because they showed up, and slowly took over the entire continent by means of horrific magnitudes of death and bloodshed, and claimed it as their own?
Because unless you are descended entirely from the indigenous peoples who used to solely populate the whole continent, you are at least in part descended from people who did not ‘do it the right way’.
Proof? A history book.
When have nomads who settle nowhere ever had a claim to a land? The indigenous people in North America were nomads. People who never develop land have no claim to it.
Nomads who move from place to place… kinda like the Europeans who moved from Europe to America and wandered from the eastern colonies all across the continental US to settle as they pleased?
They seemed to have no problems claiming the land as they killed their way through it, and you seem to have no problems with that claim.
How about your modern day capitalist who moves all over the place with no permenant residence, perhaps from one of their houses to another one, perhaps across countries and continents - they’re wandering and having no problems with claiming land, and you seem to have no problems with their claim. Settling nowhere is your requirement, remember - money changing hands didn’t seem to stop the European immigrants who built America in the first place, so why does it make the difference now?
How many people own land today and don’t develop it? Tons, most by a long way probably. Do they have a claim to their land? Apparently so, and you seem to have no problems with their claim.
How much do you have to develop it to qualify as developing it? These “nomads” built shelters and farmed the land - apparently that qualifies as colonisation. If/when they move on is the land then free for anyone? I guess that means as soon as you move out of a house it’s free game for anyone to simply “claim” without compensation like the European colonisers who founded American.
And why is that a requirement at all?
Why are you just pulling reasons out your ass that don’t hold up to even a moment’s thought - which are routinely and legally violated even today. Your arguments are plainly hypocritical, just admit it.
Why the need to be ridiculous? Established societies set up laws that govern the land as well as protect the societies borders and their citizen’s claims to ownership of the land, so no need to go to ridiculousville with all that emotion based junk you wrote about history. Some societies made homes on lands to cultivate and grow their societies while others roamed about never advanced enough to understand the ramifications of leaving vast territories open for claiming by new residents.
Everyone beyond the first man and women were immigrants who unjustly claimed ownership of lands surrounding the first couple who had claims to the world in their minds but could not develop or protect the globe. That’s how ridiculous you sound with your pseudo history lesson as if it holds water and the silly rationalizations you place on today’s lands even though you know full well how they are governed. Please refrain from any further nonsense.
Joker told me that there is a historical concept that is called the right of conquest which has happened everywhere constantly all throughout time up until the last few centuries, which you are guilty of and seem to have no problem with hypocritically either, so there. 
Go back to the exact area of Africa you germinated from and be happy and conscience free. 
Actually this proves my point just as well - as I was aware that it would.
“Everyone beyond the first man and women were immigrants” - your own words undo your anti-immigrant sentiments 
So well done for coming up with my initial argument against yours, all by yourself and proving yourself wrong, you clever lady!
I do have a problem with “the right of conquest”, which was my whole point against the creation of America in the first place… where did I say I didn’t? 
How is my being perfectly consistent hypocritical? My whole point is that nobody should have to go back to where they “germinated from”, they should “be happy and conscience free” to immigrate as people always have - by your own argument above.
Given “the right of conquest” if these immigrants conquered your lands, would they have this right of conquest to displace you? If your answer is they wouldn’t win, then your argument is either a challenge to them or equivalent to nothing more than “might is right”.
The only emotion based argument I’ve made is in favour of empathy with immigrants (such as yourself, as you pointed out above) to realise they’re just regular humans like you. Everything else that I’ve said makes perfect sense without any need for emotion.
So as long as you stick around to claim your territory, you have the claim, right? Didn’t work so well for the Cherokee’s lands - they weren’t nomads.
I guess that point I made about the normadic life of the modern day capitalist or owner of multiple properties means squatters have more right to claim whichever properties they aren’t using. Or the laws protect them now? I guess any of the American nomadic tribes, before their displacement by the European, should have thought to make those laws! Those dumbasses, they deserved to have their lands claimed by right of conquest, huh?
K: such ignorance and bigotry in one piece… congrats… usually most people hide
their ignorance and bigotry into a couple of posts… well done, it only took you one post
to reveal your white privilege and your complete hatred of people… well, not
people who you approve off like whites, anglo-saxon, church going, conservatives…
because you are that, you approve of that… and anyone different…
you have fear, hatred, anger, disgust toward anyone different then you…
Kropotkin
Your ashamed of who you are that is why 98% of your posts reek of vitriol towards anyone who doesn’t think like you. How many times are you going to attack me Peter? Is that all you know how to do other than whine about things an eight year old know better about in your blog thread?
Pish posh, I’m not anti-immigrant as you so wrongly suppose, I am anti-illegal immigrant for starters. Much of what I wrote was an absurd example of your reasoning. I think you crave to be ridiculous and your most recent thread speaks of your communist beliefs as well…all ridiculousness. Rent your clothes from the state as well. LOL.
You say no one has rights to land if they purchase it, but if they verbally claim they have rights cuz they roam the continent, they own the land. Now that’s ridiculous and in no way does it prove your point. I’m gonna claim I own you cuz I claim I own the entire world since I reside on it’s entirety subjectively. < That’s your far fetched logic.
The Cherokee fought for their lands and lost and don’t get it twisted, the Cherokees wanted all the lands, they just couldn’t protect those vast borders. The indigenous people warred over territory and shed plenty of each other’s blood over land, so stop acting as if they were innocent and knew nothing of conquest. You don’t understand or appreciate history and wish to rewrite it, that’s the problem.
Conquest is might is right, and might comes from a civilized, organized, weaponized, more advanced society. Whoever is more advanced can conquer if they so choose. They want to conquer to upgrade those still in the dark ages who are not making use of resources for their hopefully expanding population. Duh, that’s why there are arms races never ending.
Sil wrote
Obviously, you are fine with the conquest for you stay where you do not belong. I know you want to say that you belong anywhere you desire to roam, but that is not reality. And the reason I say you want to rewrite history is in your mind only Europeans sinned in the past, is for this shame that you think everyone else is entitled to move about unrestricted and settle down wherever with nothing (no money, no skills, no holdings) but a supposed work ethic. Heck, why don’t you pay for everyone’s travels, the legal fees to enter everyplace, education, and their social welfare costs since you are not saving for any major purchases such as properties?
Actually, I agree with Gloominary about property rights being revoked when lands are undeveloped and have no residents after so many years (I can’t remember the number of years he suggested), say after 3 years the property is resold.
No that’s ridiculous. Just property is all. Nice slippery slope fallacy.
It sure isn’t 
I’m not even saying what my position is, I’m just showing your position is hypocritical. That’ll be your black and white thinking again: “if I argue against one thing I am in favour of its absolute opposite”.
I guess their own desires and bloodshed excuse their lands being forcably taken from them out of desire and through bloodshed?
I’m not re-writing anything, I’m stating the fact that America was founded on immigrants taking lands from those who were living there.
Yep, that sure is the case. Does that make it okay?
Again, I am not fine with the conquest of anywhere.
Of course not only Europeans sinned in the past, no murderous conquests were fine.
Who said I’m not saving? You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth just to call them ridiculous.
So indigenous Americans “snoozed and losed”. Sounds legit.
So back to your points that I was criticising: there is no argument against illegal immigrants that you can make that does not contradict how the whole thing you’re trying to conserve was set up in the first place. Hypocrisy.
Many if not most were not nomadic? Some did shift between two places in summer to winter. But I can’t take people’s apartments if they winter in Florida. Many had permanent land occupation.
First, proofs are in math and symbolic logic. Second, I don’t think it can possibly be contested that Europeans took lands from people who had been there before. Relocated or killed or mixtures of both. Of course Europeans did this with each other and other groups ahve and do this with each other. It is part of human history. But it is hardly legal (or illegal) is was use of power, often with false claims to this or that King of Queen and the approval of the church. IOW a bunch of rationalisations and bs. The descendents of these people who use force justified by bs to take land not theirs and then theirs did not do it right. They just did it. And if some Mexican sneaks across the border using wile I can’t see how someone can claim that is less moral, than using force and royal rights/Christianity as justification. He can claim that Americans are underutilizing their portion of North America. And when americans hire him cause he’ll work cheaper, this will confirm it for him. People using smarts, wile, power,w hatever.
I have no problem with countries restricting immigration and enforcing this. I see very few people, for exmaple on the Left, actually willing to allow complete open borders or sharing their apartments with anyone who crashes the place.
But this moral bullshit is just that, bullshit.
I’m not for fully open borders, I’m more in favour of having some kind of simpler and easier recording of who comes and goes with the intent to stop things like human trafficking and the crossing of criminals etc., but not so much as to deter the vast majority of people who just want to come and go for work and opportunity as they did in the days that built modern America.
The fact that I’m calling Wendy on her hypocrisy doesn’t place me on one extreme instead of the other. Whilst there are plenty of ultra-liberals who are happy to live highly ascetic lifestyles in the company of all sorts of people, I am not social - I don’t even let family crash at my place… walls are for houses, not for border lines in the sand - there’s no hypocrisy in being in favour of freer travel and secure houses.
I wouldn’t call empathy “moral bullshit”, if that’s what you were referring to. It’s a fact that humans from anywhere are just as human as any others - yet tribalistic people too often forget this when fearing different people and the slightest degree of change.
You are for open borders and the NWO.
Also, I am no more of a hypocrite than you. You have no plans to relinquish what you gained from being who and where you are.
There are no lands in the US that are not owned legally by somebody, so in reality there are no claims to be made today. People can make all kinds of claims about owning this or that but if they can’t produce said ownership and actually protect what’s owned borders then they don’t own it, never owned, and never will own it as long as it is simply wishful thinking. The Indians wishfully owned the entire continent says some people like KT and Sil, but they could not defend their claims before times became more civilized. I know you and Sil want to mix analogies of bygone days into the mix as if what happened hundreds of years ago and all throughout time by every country and tribe somehow disqualifies or shames what was done by the US Europeans. There’s nothing wrong with expansion for land and resources, but today we have laws that halt such conquests in most cases, but it doesn’t stop super powers from re-annexing territories in their name like Russia taking Crimea. Russia said it had claims to owning Crimea and they were willing to fight it out and protect it once they reconquered it. That’s ownership not wishful thinking or emoting on behalf of wishful thinking.
I don’t understand your argument.
You seems to be saying that there is some sort of legal ownership which makes taking land wrong or immoral. Here:
“There are no lands in the US that are not owned legally by somebody, so in reality there are no claims to be made today. People can make all kinds of claims about owning this or that but if they can’t produce said ownership and actually protect what’s owned borders then they don’t own it, never owned, and never will own it as long as it is simply wishful thinking. The Indians wishfully owned the entire continent says some people like KT and Sil, but they could not defend their claims before times became more civilized.”
But then you seem to be saying that the only thing that’s important is the power to take and hold land. Here:
“There’s nothing wrong with expansion for land and resources, but today we have laws that halt such conquests in most cases, but it doesn’t stop super powers from re-annexing territories in their name like Russia taking Crimea. Russia said it had claims to owning Crimea and they were willing to fight it out and protect it once they reconquered it. That’s ownership not wishful thinking or emoting on behalf of wishful thinking.”
So which is it?
Oh black and white Wendy…
Are you a panda or a zebra? Those are the only two extremes that exist in the animal kingdom, one or the other.
Neither of us are going to have to relinquish anything…
You’re just scared of a future that won’t exist.
Also, even if I did have no plans to relinquish what I gained from being who and where I am, that would not make me more of a hypocrite, we would be equally hypocritical… what is your objection to logic?
But as it stands you are the one arguing against illegal immigrants to conserve the same America that was built by illegal immigrants in the first place. I’m not arguing this hypocritical point, I’m arguing against it. Ergo, you are more hypocritical because you are claiming more hypocritical things.
Makey sensey?
"WendyDarling’ post :
Um, asshole, don’t tell me what I am for. I am not for open borders. I own the fact that I want, regardless of who deserves what, to protect what is mine, and not put extra burdens on the state and taxpayers that might affect me and mine. Not becuase I am better than Mexicans, but because I want what I want. Unlike you I don’t have to base this on some kind of false moral ground.
Note the above. I am not a hypocrite. I am honest about being selfish. I do not have to have some myth that I deserve this stuff. You tell yourself a story to reassure yourself you deserve it more than someone else.
Don’t ever tell me what I believe again, you shallow binary idiot.
Yup, its about power.
I never said they owned the whole continent. But Europeans based on the lies in Christianity and based on Royal rights, took away the entire continent - And this included permanent settlements - but for a few small places those indians who survived were forced to live in.
Precisely. They could not defend it. It has nothing to do with morality. It had to do with power. The peopel who came and took nearly everything were not legal immigrants, had no right to it and took it. And if some government does this to you, should things change, it will be legal also. They made up legal shit. And just like you they needed stories to justify their actions. They did it for Jesus, they had the right because they were Christians and these were heathens, they were expanding the rightful empires of their kings and queens. They couldn’t face and you can’t face that they just did stuff because they could. They didn’t deserve what they took, they took it. And some of them were exceptionally greedy and vicious about it. Others were not like that. I dislike people who take stuff they don’t need adn will kill to be richer. They generally think that is bad themselves so they make up stories about why they deserve to take vastly more than they need. Most of the arrivals were not like that. But I don’t see it in moral terms.
Look, asshole. Making up your own weird paraphrases for my position just makes you look stupid. I am not trying to shame Europeans, now or then. I understand that they did what were the cultural habits of the time. It’s you who want to present the whole thing in moral terms. Its you who think you deserve what you have, being descended from X. We don’t deserve it more than anyone. We don’t deserve it less either. We have it and we have the system that backs this up. I am for this to a great degree, for selfish, not moral reasons, and I don’t need to judge the immigrants, legal or otherwise as immoral. You need the hate you have because otherwise you’d feel guilty. They have to be bad, so you can feel like you deserve it more than them. You are just the beneficiary of power.
You psychologically need them to be classed as bad.
They are not. They are simply trying to improve their lot, just as the Europeans who came here were trying to improve their lot. Get, people doing what their cultures tell them is ok, given their desires. Now note some of the people who took the most when they came over didn’t need much. These people took enormous swathes of land and resources and killed as a rule people to maintain this. The average illegal immigrant gets by with not very much and does not kill to maintain that. Yes, you will see them as evil and your ancestors who took much more than they needed as good and fine.
You need to feel like you are one of the good guys, entitled to what you have. I have no such illusion. You are not morally superior per se to an illegal immigrant.
I have no illusions about the Europeans who came and I don’t need to see them as bad. And I don’t need to see the Mexicans illegals as bad or good, or reassure myself with fantasies that I deserve what I have more than them. I still want it. I still support closed borders. I just don’t have your fantasies. IOW you are more cowardly, because you can’t face what you are actualy doing. You need this hallucinated myth to justify your deserving.
Strawman arguments and your hallucinations of moral superiority.
Putin certainly had a much better claim than the US did to Texas/New Mexico etc. They also had to make up stories to justify the war that got those places from Mexico. They couldn’t face that they just wanted it and took it. Just as you must snarl about the immoral illegal immigrants to feel like it is ok to have what you have. You are the lucky beneficiary of military might. Me too. (of course both of us have worked and the specifics of what we own may have to do with all sorts of positive qualities and we paid taxes to support that might, etc. but the fact that we are on this side of the border and have had the opportunities we got from the get go and many Mexicans did not from the get go has nothing to do with us deserving. It has to do with our luck. You need to think you have some special mythical deserving and this makes you superior to people coming here and justifying this in their own ways. I don’t. I want what I want.)
It pisses me off that so many people have this binary brain thing. It is so facile. He made a noise that sounded like team B, therefore he is team B and so I know everything about him, I can even talk for him or tell him what he wants and believes. To people like you there is only your team and the other team. One has to be right and it is your team. These teams are monolithic. And so you are off on your crusade against the infidels and nothing can bring nuance or complexity into the discussion. A neat, anxiety free way of viewing reality. Cookie cutter thinking. No chewing just swalling whole your teams protocol.
There are computer programs that could do as well having a conversation. IOW I am not sure the way you participate here passes the Turing Test.
Can you actually think for yourself or must you copy/paste from your team brochures?
And this is not a right wing thing, the left does this just as much.