Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

If anyone should understands this, Okie "Native Americans" should. Though most of my friends who fall into that group prefer to be called Indians since they think "Native Americans" is an ivory tower (or white, East Coast intellectual) constructed word that is totally out of touch with their reality. Thanks for sharing this.
 

Intersting.
Cute.
Excellent piece of propaganda in its own right.
The economic explotations argument is actually the crux of the matter.
It should have stopped there.

Bringing in the Indian genocide/ land stealing/ aren't you ashamed stuff is a red herring and has nothing to do with the core problem in 2007.
In that most probably 90% of the illegals from Mexico are majority indian blood by ancestory anyway how does that figure in?

Also noted that the SD "Sioux" land position was prominant. Most Indian tribes have little use for the Sioux and their strident voice.

Also the picture of the Sioux compound from 1862 was of the prisioners' POW camp taken after the Sioux war started by the Sioux in Minnesota during the Civil War.

Of course there are two sides to the debate. If the people protesting the deportation of illegals etc. etc. are not the other side then what are they?

This topic is like abortion. It is being dichotomized into black and white positions both of which are dead wrong. So any Mugwamp that tries to find middle ground will get their ass and face both shot off.

My plan is to simply have open borders with both Mexico and Canada and let it go at that. Most of the illegals in the U.S. don't want to stay here. They love their home and homeland as much as we do ours. We have been screwing over Mexico since before it was Mexico. Hell Mexico (as part of Spain) used to extend to the Mississippi River and up to the Canadian Border and out to the Pacific Ocean. Oklahoma was part of Mexico longer than it has been part of the U.S..

It is time to open the borders so that all these people can go home for Christmas and come back to work when they want to. Just like we do with Candians and the Canadians do with us.

Let their young workers come here to work and let our Baby Boomers go there to stay warm and live well on their reduced Social Security payments. It's a Win Win.
 

I hope others take the time to watch this. Note that I do not say that "something" shouldn't done -- and maybe yer idea is right on, Drlobojo: Open the damn borders all the way.

I think NAFTA was a bad idea. But, like every other damn thing tried in this country, it really WAS half-assed. Let's go whole effing hog and see what happens: Joint citizenship.

The Indian thing is important to remember, though, although it *is* always oversimplified: The Indians were never "the Other" -- they were, and are, the OtherS.

My main point with this lil video is to say: American citizens have no moral high ground in the immigration quandary.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say whatever moral high ground we EVER used to have on ANY issue was long, long ago pissed away.
 

Isn't the "moral high ground" by definition, where the winner is standing?

By opening up the border we take away the fuedal hold business employers have on the Mexican worker today. They will be free to openly move from job market to job market. The businesses can no longer count on their silence and reluctance to protest low wages and poor treatment.

Will we let in more bad guys? Probably not. Probaby not, their going to want to sneak across anyway. Open borders do not mean that flow will not be channeled through legal ports of entry. All other entry/exits would be considered illegal and could be handled more strongly as such because the "legals" wouldn't need to go that way.
 

Drlobojo makes a great point that most illegals (i.e., from Mexico or Central America) have some if not pure indigenous ancestry. It's too bad there has not been more unity between them and those in the U.S. Though from different tribal nations, they are the true, non-immigrant populations of the Americas. Ann Coulter, whom I admit I actually laugh with from time to time, is definitely from true immigrant stock. I bet her great-great-great-great-grandmother was either the town slut or witch of Plymouth.
 

Wow! Exellent, ER, really great.

Drlobojo gets it right - open wide the gates, let them all come in, and go, should they wish.
 

Of course ER you are aware that the great state of Oklahoma passed HB 1804 this year. As of November 1, 2007 it will be a felony to help an illegal alien do anything in Oklahoma. Interestingly being in the country illegally is a misdemeanor. To help someone who has committed this misdemeanor is a felony. I guess anyone who supports those who commit the felony to help those who comitted the misdemeanor will be put to death! That's the logical escalation.

So if you want to go to school, college, get a liscene of any type, buy a car or home, get any government benifit you have to prove you are a U.S. citizen. They will eventually have to ask everybody for proof every time for everyone of these transactions, because if they do not they are in direct violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Funny that we are going to spend all this time and money and inconvience and get nothing but grief for it.

Ironic that it is a christian from a baptist church at a religious school that got this through the legislature.

The amount of money our State and local governments are going to pay for false arrest and illegal detention, and unequal protection for those mistakenly thought to be illegal staggers the mind.

So Oklahoma is against opening up anything. Then again it was 1968 before the people of the State decided to vote out the original articles of racial segregation in our State constitution. Even then 25% voted to keep them in.

Thus Oklahoma will become the test case for the "Know Nothings" laws of the 21st century.
 

Randy Terrell will go down in the history books, after this state goes down in flames over his stupid law. Good people will be jailed for helping immigrants here. Churches, a few anyway, will offer sanctuary.
 

I just lost 15 minutes of my life watching crap.

We are a sovereign nation with a need and duty to protect our borders. Opening the borders is a terrible idea that can have nothing but bad results. Your bitch is with the government of Mexico that has done little to create a country their people wouldn't need to leave.

Jeez, now I hate cats more than ever!
 

MA said: "Opening the borders is a terrible idea that can have nothing but bad results."
Actually, there is a chunk of my own self the agrees with MA.
Opening the border is not my first ideal chioce either. It is however the least worst alternative under the current reality.
Somewhere between 8 to 12 or 20 million people(everybody has a different number) have walked through the "closed" border in the last 20 years. Closing (i.e. sealing) the borders is not physically or fiscally possible. Laws trying do so have been unenforcable. Better to solve the problem that is already here than try to solve the problem we had 30 years ago.
"Closing" the border is a pipe dream. You can't do it. You can regulate it. You can mitigate it. But you can not seal the damn thing, it is like trying to use a 4000 mile dike to hold back the ocean.
P.S. if was crap whyd did you watch the whole thing? Compulsive?
 

Even if MA thought it was "crap," I say it was worth his 15 minutes; I'll bet her heard some thoughts on the matter he hadn't heard before -- and it probably made his head hurt. :-)
 

I watched the whole thing because I was promised it would be worth it to do so. It did have worth in the sense that it illustrates misconceptions the left has toward the right. That's about it, though.

I am troubled by the attitude that says if an issue is troublesome, that we should throw in the towel. It hasn't been our existing policy that has resulted in the millions invading, it has been an unwillingness to enforce the law. It's the natural result of policies that forgive the crime, beginning with Reagan's unfortunate decision for amnesty. If one is not to be heal accountable, if there is no expectation of any difficulty with the law, why worry?

The solution is to tighten up the enforcement end of the deal. Send anyone back who cannot prove they belong here. Near crippling financial penalties, with jail time for non-compliance, for employers caught hiring illegals. And of course, seal as much of the border as possible. If the discomfort level is raised, fewer will choose this path.

At this point, we can then review our immigration policies concerning how many are allowed in, and who is allowed in.

All the while, we should be encouraging an adoption of our economic policis by Mexico. Send advisors to help them accomplish this, if necessary. A more prosperous Mexico will benefit us as well as themselves.

The cartoon's position that illegals are equated to the early settlers is nonsense. It's definition for the word "immigrant" is now incomplete for this day and age if the word "legally" isn't placed in front of "moving to another land". Most countries, I believe prefer to know who's amongst them and going through the established processes accomplishes this.

I would also dispute the notion that there were original people here when the settlers came. Most scholars believe the indigenous peoples did not originate here. Thus, by the cartoon's own line of thinking, no one here is a native. I would also add that at the time of the settlers, there was no country here, only land for the taking. Taken as it had been by those who had already been here, and taken as it had been all over the world by one people from another.
 

Re, "Most scholars believe the indigenous peoples did not originate here. Thus, by the cartoon's own line of thinking, no one here is a native."

Well, by your own line of thinking, no one originated anywhere, outside the Garden of Eden, right? The point is Native Americans were here first.

Re, "I would also add that at the time of the settlers, there was no country here, only land for the taking. Taken as it had been by those who had already been here, and taken as it had been all over the world by one people from another."

Amazingly fifth-gradishly arrogant. No "country" as we understand it, true, no concept of individual ownership of land as we understand it, true, no political borders as we know them, true -- but there were nations here, as in organized peoples with commonly held world views, religions, and family and cultural kinships. Yes, some of them warred with others of them. Nonetheless, Europeans came and took, which is a nice way of saying "stole" and "swindled." And it did, in fact, happen exactly like Daisy said should be done again (at the end of the cartoon): America founded itself directly on topof the existing communities of peoples who were already here -- in some cases, directly on top of constitutional Indian nations created and modeled directly after American government itself: See Georgia and the Cherokee Nation in the 1820s. The fricking Cherokees had, in fact, a sovereign nation. And the sovereign state of Georgia busted it up. So much for the 1960s fifth-grade notion of civilized American finding nothing but childlike, or warring, redskins in breechclouts on this continent.
 

Basically M.A. is saying if you can take it, then it is yours. Might makes right. The ends satisfy the means.
With these rules the invading horde from Mexico is scary indeed.
M.A. is not alone, not now, not historically.
 

In re Marshall's comments about "no nations" - he apparently doesn't understand that, until the mid-17th century, the very idea of a nation-state was non-existent. As it stands, there were most definitely borders and claimed territories that functioned for various native peoples the same way nation-states worked in Europe. There were alliances, diplomacy, treaties, wars, all the things that go to make up international relations. Simply because the native folks here did not have a notion of "land" as an object to be bought, sold, traded, or owned does not mean the land was, therefore, ripe for the taking by those who had those concepts.

Like ER, I am glad that Marshall spent his time watching that video. That his head didn't explode is a minor miracle. The best one can hope for is that it planted a seed of doubt in his mind.

One can always dream. . .
 

Dreaming is what you do best Geoffrey. You certainly don't deal in realities.

Those natives were doing amongst each other what everyone else in the world was doing at the same time. It was how it was and the settlers coming in to spread their culture was how it was done. Yeah, someone was the first to live everywhere. Big deal. That was the way of the world. Yet, now, in the 21st century, such methods of nation creation do not occur, except by the few primitive tribes that still exist, and the hopes of radicals everywhere. Neither count in this discussion.

"Fifth-gradishly arrogant"? First, I appreciate the promotion. I studied really hard. But arrogance? Not at all. A mere retelling of events is all. And here's more:

Long before the 17th century, there were indeed versions of the nation-state dynamic. History is rife with peoples expanding their empires. There was definitely a sense of a chunk of land "belonging" to someone almost throughout history. Land was awarded, taken away, inherited, conquered, discovered and claimed, and it was done by the "indigenous" peoples throughout the Americas.

But more to the point, comparing what happened in the 16-1700's to what is happening now is a major stretch in trying to support the opening of our borders. It's as irrelevant as bringing up the Crusades in discussions regarding radical Islam.

Worse still, is the accusations of racism and such regarding the "enforce the borders" crowd, when most of us know, work with, and have strong friendships with immigrants who came here legally. The cartoon is only that, just a cartoon.
 

Hoot! You've shown your hand!

"It's as irrelevant as bringing up the Crusades in discussions regarding radical Islam."

THAT's the point. It is UTTERLY relevant in the same way that bringing up the Crusades absolutely IS critical to understanding radical Islam! JeeZUS!

You act as if these events of history exist in vacuums. They do not.