Native American Exile: Illegal Immigration Laws toward Mexico harm American Indians

[Sistrin]

As said before, wrangling doesn't show one has a point - you already avoided the OP topic and have continued (which means it will be reported again if it goes off topic again ) since no one was discussing illegal immigration as justified BUT yourself. Period.

Actually, you did. From your OP, quote:

Many have wondered on why there has been such a fuss over the issue of illegal immigration - and yet what's fascinating is that many have never chosen to see the issue as connected to things which the U.S has been guilty of and yet never really acknowledging.

You began the thread by making that connection, which you expand upon here, also from your OP:

Specifically, you do not hear of the U.S actively choosing to kick others out of the country who are Native Americans....but how often do you hear of others from Mexico (which is often discriminated against in the talks of immigration regulation) as described as Native Americans?

You begin the thread with a logical fallacy by attempting to equate illegal immigrants from Mexico with Native Americans. From US Legal dot com:

Native American Law & Legal Definition

The term "Native Americans" or "Indians" refers to Eskimos, Aleuts, and native North Americans. An Indian tribe is a body of Indians of the same or similar race united in a community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular territory. The term "tribe" varies from statute to statute and is sometimes used interchangeably with "nation" or "subtribe."

Source: Native American Law & Legal Definition

The definition of native born has been previously provided. However you continue to prove my point with your next statement, also from your OP:

Many have pointed out that the Illegal Immigration issue is directly connected to the issue of Native Americans since the reality of the matter is that those often deemed illegal (such as Mexicans, for example) are simply called Hispanic when the reality is that their descent is actually from Native American groups.

So tell us again why it is acceptable for you to make that point but it isn't acceptable for me to respond to it? Your OP was about the points I addressed in my last post.

Unless you can show directly in quotation where anyone said "Illegal immigration is excellent", one is making up an argument.

Another strawman. My claim did not include the claim you or anyone else ever said illegal immigration was excellent. I said you have attempted to justify it by comparing native born Mexican and South American citizens violating the laws of the sovereign United States to native born Native Americans. And you have.

People already have challenged things in court - regardless of willful ignoring on that point.

Now you are being disingenuous. I did not ignore that point, I made that point.

If you cannot understand an argument before speaking, it's best to not not speak until actually knowing what's up.

Ad hominem fallacy.

That said, it is again equivocation speaking on illegal immigration when one cannot show in any way whatsoever that immigration was legal - and if you avoid all instances where immigration itself was already against policies/treaties set up, from the Proclamation Line...

The Proclamation Line was a royal decree issued thirteen years prior to the founding of the nation. All royal decrees were abolished in the United States as a result of the Revolution and the drafting of the US Constitution.

Proclamation of 1763

WHEREAS we have taken into Our Royal Consideration the extensive and valuable Acquisitions in America, secured to our Crown by the late Definitive Treaty of Peace, concluded at Paris the 10th Day of February last; and being desirous that all Our loving Subjects, as well of our Kingdom as of our Colonies in America, may avail themselves with all convenient Speed, of the great Benefits and Advantages which must accrue therefrom to their Commerce, Manufactures, and Navigation, We have thought fit, with the Advice of our Privy Council, to issue this our Royal Proclamation, hereby to publish and declare to all our loving Subjects, that we have, with the Advice of our Said Privy Council, granted our Letters Patent, under our Great Seal of Great Britain, to erect, within the Countries and Islands ceded and confirmed to Us by the said Treaty, Four distinct and separate Governments, styled and called by the names of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada, and limited and bounded as follows, viz.

Source: Proclamation of 1763

The Proclamation Line was a measure as much or more to keep the colonist confined to a manageable area for the crown as it was about protecting Indian lands. One of the first treaties signed post Revolution was the 1778 Treaty of the Delawares.

Articles of agreement and confederation, made and, entered; into by, Andrew and Thomas Lewis, Esquires, Commissioners for, and in Behalf of the United States of North-America of the one Part, and Capt. White Eyes, Capt. John Kill Buck, Junior, and Capt. Pipe, Deputies and Chief Men of the Delaware Nation of the other Part.

Source: The Avalon Project : Treaty With the Delawares : 1778

Within a year the Delaware Indians had renounced the treaty and joined the British in the war against the United States. No one is sure how White Eyes was killed, but he was an outspoken advocate for the United States and one theory is the British executed him for that reason. Regardless, not all treaties were broken by the United States or the American Colonist.

Incorrect again, as assertion does not equate to fact since the comment ignores SEVERAL confederacies that existed among the tribes...

Another strawman. I did not say there existed no confederacies or tribal councils. I said there was no centralized government for the evil white interloper to go to and negotiate terms. Treaties made with the Delawares did not apply to the Sioux.

No one said the Plains wars were entirely the fault of whites...

Then we are in agreement about this aspect.

World Net Daily is not a even a primary source...

And Youtube is? However as a published author on the American Civil War I know what a primary source is. World Net Daily wasn't offered as a primary source, your charge is another strawman. However for our purpose here World Net Daily is as valid a source as NPR, and far more so than Youtube.

However WND wasn't the only source I cited concerning reparations. You commented on that one because it is one many on the left like to snicker at. And then post something from the Huffington Post.

Trying to quote a secondary source such as Wikipedia is moot when it comes to arguing something no one was discussing or questioning.

Posting a series of Youtube videos of someone offering their opinion does not provide factual support of your argument.

One last point:

Denying that fact does not change National law/tax money to support it. For all the arguments of emotion you have given so far, you have again missed that simple point. For it's arguing past the issue when avoiding the subject that no one said those born in the U.S (natural born citizens) are required to do reparations for those who are illegal - that was your own argument out of nowhere and it is willfully ignoring what was stated when it comes to others advocating for immigration reform and noting that not all people coming over "illegally" were ever ILLEGAL or demanding reparations to begin with. This is what we call argument via appeal to ridicule and chasing windmills thinking they're giants.

Allow me to attempt to decipher this word salad.

Reparations, as I cited earlier, have already been paid. Tell me Gxg, those billions of dollars Obama signed over, from whom did that money come?

If illegal aliens from Mexico are to be granted amnesty and then declare themselves Native Americans, will they not qualify for future reparations?

People who were born in Mexico or South America and then cross into the United States in violation of US law are by definition illegal immigrants. According to US law, you cannot declare them somehow not illegal simply because they may have ancestors who belonged to a tribe which once lived somewhere at some time South of the US border.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Actually, you did. From your OP, quote:



You began the thread by making that connection, which you expand upon here, also from your OP:

Incorrect again - and as said, off-topic - as the main focus was on the subject of those whom people focus upon when it comes to immigration and seeing who they actually are.

...those often deemed illegal (such as Mexicans, for example) are simply called Hispanic when the reality is that their descent is actually from Native American groups (i.e. Incans, Mayans, etc.) and other groups that were in the Americans before European Colonialization. - and thankful for the solidarity between Hispanics and Native Americans when realizing common connections and how much Spanish culture itself involved the Native American dynamic - as the mixture of cultures happened and was often something the Spanish were very upset about - but Western Powers often try to divide groups among themselves.....

And when considering the extensive history of Native American territory conquered, it is interesting to see how much the mindset was advocated that you had to change the way that you saw people on the maps you had of them in order to justify dismissing them. For reference, one can go here in How the West was lost by Native Americans
......

[/CENTER][/URL]

The discussion was always centered on discussing people whom the conversations on illegal immigration or immigration generally center upon and their identity...

The topic was NEVER about seeing if illegal immigration being good or something to champion as much you wish to claim otherwise against the OP - and trying to wrangle on what you felt the topic was about isn't the same as actually dealing with the topic as the OP author has already said to others and which others already have dealt with. Harping on "You're focusing on Illegal immigration!!!" is willfully ignoring the context of the OP when the subject was on the people being accused of illegal immigration or demonized for mass immigration in general legally (concerning those against many immigrants coming to the U.S.). I don't support illegal immigration even though I also advocate for those treated wrongly with Border Patrol and the inconsistency of always crying on about "illegal immigrants" when many came over legally/were deemed "illegal" due to not getting documents verified that they had - or being detained/not given quick process and others fleeing where they came from because of the damage WE in the U.S. caused in their origin countries. Even with trying to accuse others of supporting illegal immigration simply because it was mentioned, it was already stated clearly that illegal immigration was never supported and I supported immigration reform - as I mentioned specifically to you before here:

...there have already been Conservative Cases for Open Borders which allow for restriction without extensive militarization. True Conservatives understand that there's a difference between Conservatism versus Restrictionism - and we already have the example of Reagan who led the way in that with immigration reform (as was the case when Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, a bipartisan immigration reform bill that created a pathway to citizenship for 3 million undocumented immigrants), even though other conservatives leave him alone many times. There are reasons, in example, for others to address the issue such as CPAC's Open-Border, Mass-Immigration Panel

• Conservative and small-government case for open borders | Open Borders: The Case

...even Fredrick Douglass spoke on the issue when addressing some of the same arguments used today that were used in his day with anti-immigration law (in regards to the Chinese).

Moreover, as I said before, the main topic of this entire thread is the following:

...we already have a main topic:

• Native Americans are harmed by certain Border Patrol Laws (Tohono O'odham and Apache as certain groups immediately referenced in example, etc.)
• Native Americans are Mexican as well and have experienced life in both the U.S as well as Mexican context historically (as noted plainly by what NPR said in their interview from The Map Of Native American Tribes You've Never Seen Before : Code Switch : NPR which was discussed alongside several University sites like Arizona State University already said on the issue in their interview as well as several other primary resources - in addition to tribal groups who've been in existence - each brought up directly in the documentaries or videos/U.S. history organizations where they spoke directly from the OP) and have had their tribal lands not respected in the U.S.
• Native American groups have protested the issue with regards to U.S. Border Patrol laws/practices and have had solidarity with Mexican immigrants especially when considering colonialism impacting Native Americans still with the mistreatment of Mexicans who are Native Americans - or Native Americans treated as illegal immigrants on their OWN land in the U.S. and ignoring historical precedents where others crossed over borders that were not set up in order to have connection with other tribes..

The Kickapoo can also be discussed as well (as already mentioned earlier).

The focus is Native Americans who live within the U.S and who are also known as Border nations/cross over legally.

Thus as said before, if you cannot stay on topic, it is best to sit down and actually get what the topic is BEFORE speaking so as to not keep speaking without actual context.

You begin the thread with a logical fallacy by attempting to equate illegal immigrants from Mexico with Native Americans. From US Legal dot com:

Anyone can claim logical fallacy - but as said before, you've already avoided at several points proving where Mexicans are not Native Americans. You do realize that Native North Americans also includes Mexico/tribes from that area (as Mexico also included Texas/other Southwest areas before the U.S. acquired them) - but Going to U.S. Legal dot.com is like going online to webster to see what the term "Black" means and assuming it speaks for all aspects of Black culture, be it Afro-Caribbean or Afro-Hispanic and several others not found in the dictionary. A U.S Legal Encylopedia more efficient.

But since your own source noted North America to include Native Americans (and that's Mexico too), some basic facts: The Tepehua, Kanjobal, Oaxacan Chontal, Pame, Chichimeca Jonaz, Guarijio, Chuj, Chocho, Tactuate, Ocuiltec, Pima Bajo, Jacaltec, Kekchi Lacandan Ixcatec, Seri, K'iche', Motochintleco, Kaqchikel, Paipai, Tohono O'odam, Cucapá, Kumiai, Kikapú, Chochimi, Ixil, Kiliwa and Aguacatec are all American Indian peoples of Mexico. Of course, this isn't even counting the many other Indian peoples south of Mexico - as we have, in example, the Coahuila Kikapú (the Kickapoo, as mentioned before), an Algonquian-speaking tribe which was pushed out of their lands near Wisconsin down to Mexico by the illegal colonialist settling in their land/pushing them out. They have tribes in differing parts of the U.S - but now, if a Kikapú visits their own land, people who are xenophobic in the U.S. dare to call the Kikapú "illegal aliens" - and of course, that's just one tribe among several. When you deal with the Mayan (in Mexico), the Yaqui Indians,the Kickapoo, the Apache and hundreds of other tribal groups which you avoid, then you can speak. Till then, you're arguing begging the question.

And as said before, your argumentation was pointless since you avoided dealing with the context of what it means to be Native American as it concerns the ORIGINAL use of the term - which you already have shown inability to deal with as it is. As stated previously:

For facts on the issue, from Travel.State.Gov:

Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that “the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals. Non-citizen nationality status refers only individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States. The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a national of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. national parents may be both a U.S. national and a national of the country of birth.

A U.S. national may acquire foreign nationality by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. national may not lose the nationality of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another.​

Even my mom has dual citizenship - being born in Panama but becoming a U.S Citizen and having nationalities from BOTH - in the same way her children, born in the U.S can also gain both). The same goes for Native Americans who have family born outside of the U.S who come to America and who are a part of Border nations where they can travel freely on the U.S. and across the Border. A basic example of this can be seen in the Indian Citizenship Act from 1924 - where all Native Americans were finally granted citizenship, whether or not they belonged to a federally recognized tribe and irregardless of whether they were on or off the reservation

​

Not that complicated, Bruh..

When you respond off topic from the discussion (like someone saying "It's wrong what happened with slavery in the U.S." and you respond with an off-the-wall comment of "Well Blacks kill each other with gang violence!!" as if that in any way deals with the subject), it is ignored - responding to points isn't the same as addressing them in context, which you've again avoided.

My claim did not include the claim you or anyone else ever said illegal immigration was excellent. I said you have attempted to justify it by comparing native born Mexican and South American citizens violating the laws of the sovereign United States to native born Native Americans. And you have.

Equivocation, as people don't justify what they feel to not be good. Claiming others try justifying something (even if the accusation is false) implies they feel they see it as a positive. Of course, seeing there were already several posts (including your recent one) speaking as if others were advocating for illegal immigration - including the comment made willfully ignoring what others said when claiming people were centered on others having freedom for illegal immigration/reparations (as you've harped on off topic as usual) - and as said before, unless you can show DIRECTLY in quotation where I ever said illegal immigration was justified, then you are arguing with your own imagination.

The focus is on the Native American heritage of those deemed Hispanic - as well as centering on the SOVEREIGN Status of FIRST Nations groups in the U.S. and how their tribal rights have been violated - which the U.S. is bound to respect if actually respecting U.S Treaty and Law (from the Jay Treaty allowing Native American tribal members freedom to cross borders without issue to the Indian Citizenship Act making all Native Americans citizens by default and several others). Moreover, in light of the many times tribes were deported across borders and separated before borders were made illegally, it is not an issue for others who have family spread out across continents and who've traveled - as people in the SW typically moved indiscriminately between the two countries for various reasons and the ranting over immigration/automatically saying mass immigration is "illegal" is really xenophobic in nature. Denying people South of the Border their Native American heritage by ignoring culture/custom and insisting on simply seeing them as Mexican rather than who they are is a means to further disenfranchise. Additionally, the Indigenious people of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Northern Mexico and towards the South along the Rio Grande in Texas and Mexico. were all Indigenious related when the Spanish arrived - thus meaning that excluding because of a river boundary or a fence is being blind to history/ignorant.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

ow you are being disingenuous. I did not ignore that point, I made that point.

Another back-track comment, as one doesn't make a point assuming others did not already state it since I already pointed out others going to court - thus making your accusation of assuming I or others didn't know a moot comment.

Ad hominem fallacy.

Unfortunately, you've already done just that (ad hominem) by failing to address the issue/go off topic rather than address the subject..

Continued...

The Proclamation Line was a royal decree issued thirteen years prior to the founding of the nation. All royal decrees were abolished in the United States as a result of the Revolution and the drafting of the US Constitution.

Proclamation of 1763

...Proclamation of 1763

The Proclamation Line was a measure as much or more to keep the colonist confined to a manageable area for the crown as it was about protecting Indian lands.

Proclamation Line was already discussed and mentioned as before - the line was made to respect the American Indians after the French and Indian Wars - as well as remembering the Sovereignty of the Native American nations.

Historically, what happened with the French and Indian Wars influenced the actions of the British - as after the Seven Years’ War the British gained land but with the land came numerous problems of how to govern it., as it concerns conflicts beginning with battles with British officials in balancing the interests of colonists and Indians, which led to colonial dissatisfaction with imperial rule. When the British were able to gain land, American Indian resistance began - there was already the context of not being invited in or having their Tribal sovereignty respected to begin with when it came to immigrating in the U.S without permission. The British were already fearful of the American Indians siding with the French who traded immensely with them due to the Fur Trade - as well as the fact that American Indians were the "gatekeepers" to the Western Frontier since they knew the land and could train others on how to hunt/navigate it....and earlier, the European conflict known as the War for the Spanish Succession in 1713, gave the British and French belligerents equal access to the American fur trade.

And after Potiac's Rebellion (led by the famous Ottawa chief) and the success of that multi-tribal crusade, the Proclamation Line was made...as the Proclamation Line declared European and Native Americans to be equal parts of a multi-ethnic empire (more in 1763: A Revolutionary Peace Exhibit | Journal of the American Revolution )

​

The Proclamation Line banned colonists from settling west of the middle of the Appalachian Mountains - but what happened was that English settlers ignored the line, expanding west and inciting conflicts with Native peoples over land in Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and other western regions.

With the Proclamation Line came the British noting that Native American Lands had to be respected (in their desire to keep Native Americans under control as much as possible) and no settlment was to occur - which infuritated other American colonialists and frontiermen who were already making extensive incursions into the West and having multiple cases of violence toward American Indians - and this is why during the American Revolution there was such intense violence toward American Indians. But of course, all of this followed upon the ways that Native Americans were always a threat to Europeans who were seeking to gain land and deal with other Sovereign Nations already present and having GREAT issue with others presuming to say that the land was European and Europeans had the right to immigrate in/take land.


Other historians who have covered the issue in-depth would be people such David Dixon of the work Never Come to Peace Again: Pontiac's Uprising and the Fate of the British Empire in North America..as well as Colin Gordon Calloway, of works such as The Scratch of a Pen : 1763 and the Transformation of North America and The Shawnees and the War for America

Others historians such as Collin Calloway (critically acclaimed author of historical books on Native American history) have also covered the issue in-depth when it comes to Native American Tribal Sovereignty and the ways that events played out - in addition to noting the ways Native Americans were highly similar to the Scottish in their resistance toward British colonial empires and how they organized governments as seen in his work entitled White People, Indians, and Highlanders: Tribal People and Colonial Encounters in Scotland and America:

Other places have discussed this simple issue in-depth:

• Proclamation 1763 | Video | C-SPAN.org

• Discussion American Indian Treaties Identity | Video | C-SPAN.org

• History Native American Treaties | Video | C-SPAN.org

• Native American Land Treaties | Video | C-SPAN.org

• Common Pattern Early Treaties | Video | C-SPAN.org

• Discussion US-Native American Treaties | Video | C-SPAN.org

• https://www.cmich.edu/library/clark...eaty_Rights/Pages/Understanding-Treaties.aspx

One of the first treaties signed post Revolution was the 1778 Treaty of the Delawares.

Articles of agreement and confederation, made and, entered; into by, Andrew and Thomas Lewis, Esquires, Commissioners for, and in Behalf of the United States of North-America of the one Part, and Capt. White Eyes, Capt. John Kill Buck, Junior, and Capt. Pipe, Deputies and Chief Men of the Delaware Nation of the other Part.

Source: The Avalon Project : Treaty With the Delawares : 1778

Within a year the Delaware Indians had renounced the treaty and joined the British in the war against the United States. No one is sure how White Eyes was killed, but he was an outspoken advocate for the United States and one theory is the British executed him for that reason. Regardless, not all treaties were broken by the United States or the American Colonist.

Delaware Indians broke the TREATY WITH THE DELAWARES, 1778 with the Delawares due to the consistent incursions into the West and violence by colonial settlers despite what was promised. As it is, the primary purposes of the treaty with the Delaware was to gain Delaware trade, political, and military alliance on the side of the Americans during the War of Independence....and the British also sought military/political alliances with the American Indians. But there were many problems that occurred with consistent mistreatment with the American Indians. In example, part of why the Delawares saw no true friendly relations between revolutionary America and these Indians was because in March 1782, Pennsylvania militiamen killed approximately ninety-six defenseless Delawares (Christian Indians at that) at Gnadenhutten - known as the Gnadenhutten Massacre (more here in David Barton on Thomas Jefferson – Gnadenhutten and the Christian Indians and The Gnadenhutten Massacre Revisited: A Response to David Barton )- and this alongside other encounters helped convince the Ohio Country's Indian population to support the British. And as it concerns White Eyes, it is historical error claiming no one knows what happened to him - just as it is revisionism to claim the British did it. Specifically, George Morgan, a colonial diplomat to the Lenape and Shawnee during the American Revolution, wrote to Congress that White Eyes had been murdered by American militia in Michigan

Of course, even outside of that, what cannot be avoided is how often treaties were made claiming to respect the Tribal Sovereignty of the American Indians and those treaties were consistently violated - with genocide occurring during the Indian Wars which consistently saw American Indians killed due to others wanting more expansion and always pushing them out...as evidenced with the Indian Removal Act that transplanted most Native Americans to areas west of the Mississippi - yet even that wasn't enough even after more treaties were made saying immigration would not occur and yet more violence ensued.

Another strawman.

Deflection..

I did not say there existed no confederacies or tribal councils. I said there was no centralized government for the evil white interloper to go to and negotiate terms. Treaties made with the Delawares did not apply to the Sioux.

Another equivocation and historical error, seeing that tribes had governments which negotiations DID occur. Confederacies, if truly understanding Native American culture, is how the Native Americans saw unified nations - unity within diversity and having centralized government on multiple levels, except it was stewardship by multiple groups under common ethos. One prime example would be the Iroquois League which has also been known as the Iroquois Confederacy - as other European colonists saw the Grand Council as a European-style, democratic, centralized government. . And prior to others like Tecumseh, there were Shawness, Delawares and Mingoes, sandwiched on the Ohio between threatening French and British colonies, had their own united council...... This was no different than the original vision of the American Colonies where there were differing states with differing laws but common ethos - prior to the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist debates and later the Civil War debate.

Speaking about "Evil white interloper" once again is an argument via appeal to emotion - seeing that other whites also noted the unity found in American Indians in their time and many treaties were universal to ALL. Thus, whereas some only were for Shawnee territory and not Delaware, other treaties spoke of BOTH.


Continued..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And Youtube is? However as a published author on the American Civil War I know what a primary source is.

Claiming to be a published author does zero in showing credibility - no more than it is the case that Al Sharpton is a authority on all things Black culture since he is on T.V - and as it is, you've already gone counter to several other published historians and documents at multiple points while failing to deal with primary sources. It is not credible trying to post a TABLOID source such as WND (again known as "Wing Nuts Daily") as anything credible or primary - but of course, if one is even going to speak about YouTube, you start by seeing where it comes from. University Press, C-Span, presentations from museums detailing documents (or actual studies/interviews with people within a culture as goes anthropology, etc.). You don't go to places that are the brainchild of Joseph Farah, self-described as a “radical” and longtime anti-government propagandist and apologist for the Confederacy - nor do you go to places who lack credibility with multiple news outlets (both conservative and liberal) due to the lack of accuracy and outright lying that they do (yellow journalism) on issues and that many do not believe...except by those devoted to all things on the far right.

World Net Daily wasn't offered as a primary source, your charge is another strawman. However for our purpose here World Net Daily is as valid a source as NPR, and far more so than Youtube.

Equivocation as before, as one doesn't wish to present anything with credibility by going to WND - thus your point is again moot and deflection. Your first TWO articles on the issue placed forward were from WND - putting emphasis on that source. Moreover, NPR actually deals with accurate information and has reputable name, whereas WND has never come close due to how it is a ally a tabloid for radical right-wingers

However WND wasn't the only source I cited concerning reparations. You commented on that one because it is one many on the left like to snicker at. And then post something from the Huffington Post.

Another off-topic comment, seeing that I've never said I'm simply for the Left/there's no reason assuming people snicker at a resource like WND when they dismiss it - so trying to claim personal motivations is pointless. It is again NOT the case that only people on the Left discount WND since other conservatives have called it out due to it being an embarrassment. Trying to assume others dismiss it because of people on the Left is no different than trying to make every argument in disagreement a matter of "Left vs.Right" - and as it concerns Huffington Post, it was you alone who quoted from the Huffington Post when trying to bring up articles on Democrats and Illegal Immigration as seen here:

Democrats Benefit From Illegal Immigrant Voting

Source: Democrats Benefit From Illegal Immigrant Voting[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Howard Foster

​

I already addressed that one in noting several major Democratic parties against illegal immigration which you avoided ...so unless you want to backtrack again on acting as if anyone but you claimed Huffington Post, it would be good to remain consistent with your actual words.

Again, one was talking on reparations as was already mentioned. That is your argument alone and one that goes counter to the discussion as a whole.. As was said there:

Cool to know - and we also know (as already noted elsewhere) that CNN pointed out years ago how the U.S. finalized $3.4 billion settlement with American Indians

But as said before, we're NOT TALKING about reparations in the OP, are we? It's good to actually pay attention/stay on topic if you're going to actually discuss...

And as it concerns U.S. Law, we already have as basic examples (seeing the Kickapoo as already mentioned earlier) where the "Texas Band of Kickapoo Act," approved on January 8,1983, allows for the Kickapoo Nation to freely pass and repass over the border separating Indigenous Mexico and the United States....or the "California Assembly Joint Resolution Bill Number 60" of September 16, 2002, which allows for the Baja Kumeyaay Nation to pass over the International border separating Mexico and the United States.


......................The Jay Treaty/other treaties concerning Natives crossing borders (as noted in [URL="http://www.christianforums.com/t7872176-2/#post67233903"]#16 ) has already been brought up before in regards to the OP, which you've yet to deal with in context...

And as said before on the issue, people born in other nations who have parents born in the U.S. are a part of those families. Moreover, others born abroad but coming to the U.S for citizenship are still connected to those cultures - claiming "They want claim to Texas" is ignoring what is actually said when it comes to avoiding where territory was not properly taken (or where the Southwest was a part of Mexico) or where others having family in Texas are part of why they become citizens...

........... Tribal land/reservations are protected - and one speaks out of both sides of the mouth when claiming treaties should be protected but ignoring where Native Americans from those nations were often SCATTERED in Diaspora when their nations were attacked or borders placed over them that were not always there - the treaties apply to people in Mexico since there are STILL tribes with Tribal lands on the Borders - be it Mexico or Canada. That is a basic fact you've ran from when ignoring the Lipan Apache, the Tohono, the Kickapoo and several others with legal right to cross over borders...

...We already had it where Mexican-American citizens were already deported in the 1930s illegally despite citizenship (as well as the The Bracero Program that brought in Mexicans into the U.S for labor)..
Deportation of Mexican-Americans During the 1930s - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFQm0x6ZZxw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74bbewMWikQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRddG9zcMLg

​

Every single source on reparations is nothing in any relation to the OP since the focus was never on that.

The topic has already been noted - and it is NOT reparations.

Posting a series of Youtube videos of someone offering their opinion does not provide factual support of your argument.

Argument by assertion - as you didn't offer up facts with WND in their lack of credibility nor have you dealt with the presentation by Native American historians or other leaders in the Native American world on the subject. Thus, you are again begging the question and that will never do in actual argumentation - so as said before, if you actually have a point, it would be good for you to make it rather than simply accusing without actually addressing anything. THere are other threads for wrangling - this is not it. And no series of diatribes proves a point correct on your part.

Reparations, as I cited earlier, have already been paid. Tell me Gxg, those billions of dollars Obama signed over, from whom did that money come?

If illegal aliens from Mexico are to be granted amnesty and then declare themselves Native Americans, will they not qualify for future reparations?

People who were born in Mexico or South America and then cross into the United States in violation of US law are by definition illegal immigrants. According to US law, you cannot declare them somehow not illegal simply because they may have ancestors who belonged to a tribe which once lived somewhere at some time South of the US border.

Sistrin, this is another example of chasing windmills thinking their dragons - and as said before, it is the last time it is going to be asked to stay on topic rather than trying to throw in another topic which the OP was not centered on.

Native American solidarity with immigrants in the experience of mistreatment (due to law/policy that discriminate or create prison labor out of detained immigrants, whether legal or in the process of being legalized, or violations of U.S. law for citizens) isn't the same as saying others want reparations. Native Americans noting how often borders were made in violation of original border law/treaties and thus do not need to be recognized if U.S. law isn't honored is not the same as reparations. Immigrants recognizing their connection with Native American tribes (due to the many times of being scattered abroad by the U.S. government/sponsored corporations historically and then interfering in other nations they live to a point that mass violence ensues and they have to flee for safety - without ever given opportunity to have proper paths to citizenship when they go about the process because others are xenophobic to mass immigration ) - that is not the same as reparation.

No one but yourself was focused on Reparations - which is a separate issue from focusing on those coming over into the U.S. legally and others who have immigrated in with much hassle despite being Native American.

Moreover, the focus is skewed on your part due to assuming tribes ONCE lived South of the Border with regards to connection - tribes STILL exist on those areas/have always been present when borders were made - both South and North of the Border. Moreover, while your focus is solely on illegal immigration (not the focus), we're talking on those being mistreated in the name of "addressing illegal immgration" - and harping on reparations is pointless since not all immigrants are talking on U.S. law honored.

You already ignored Native American Tribal Sovereignty and the rules for those who are American Indians when it comes to Immigration - and that is NOT what the thread is for - and as it is, it's not reparations for others to move in and immigrate under U.S. law when it comes to Tribal Sovereignty as well as recognizing where U.S. law has already failed to deal with those having Native American ancestry.

You've already ignored Border Laws for Native Americans as it concerns the Jay Treaty allowing them FREE PASSAGE. You've already ignored Dual Citizenship Law when it comes to those born outside of the U.S. and yet having family in the U.S.and having citizenship from two nations - and you've already avoided the concept of others coming in and having tribal separation. This also goes for the Indian Citizenship Act which declared ALL Native American as U.S Citizens regardless - if they were born outside of the U.S.but are a part of the tribes in the U.S, THEN THEY ARE CITIZENS - and there are other laws that note the same. Thus, you have little basis on any legal laws outside of simply harping on them without showing true understanding of them.

As already said earlier, what's forgotten for American Indians born abroad is Birthright citizenship - we cannot forget history where Native Americans were U.S. citizens by treaties or statutes granting U.S. citizenship to members of specific tribes and Immigration statutes enacted in 1924, 1940, and 1952 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans - more shared in Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison | Center for Immigration Studies. The the Citizenship clause has been interpreted to confer U.S. citizenship on anyone born within the United States whose parents are subject to U.S. civil and criminal laws—historically meaning that only babies born in the United States to diplomats, invading armies, or within certain sovereign Native American tribes have been excluded from birthright American citizenship. Of course, this is something that has been debated - as tribal delegations from the Tohono O'odham have petition Congress to change immigration law so that all members of the tribe are recognized as U.S. citizens, as their traditional lands span the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and Sonora and many say they are treated as illegal immigrants by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol, detained and deported. To be more specific, the issues of legal documentation are a significant factor in the difficulty of crossing the border since up until the 1980s, most tribal members were born at home without birth certificates ( as in the O’odham tradition, births were not recorded in writing, but were remembered by elders who passed them on orally) - and this is even more problematic when remembering that the Gadsden Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo recognized the rights of Indigenous Peoples to maintain land, culture, and religion, regardless of political borders and meaning current U.S. immigration policies violate treaty obligations.

• Globilization -Tohono O’odham tribes of the Southwest

• The Tohono O'odham - e-Education Institute

And others have already discussed the issue repeatedly - as with U.S.-Mexico border wreaks havoc on lives of an indigenous desert tribe -Al Jazeera

That said, seriously, if you're going to avoid tribal laws and treaties the U.S government has already set up, then you're already advocating what's illegal - and again, you need to focus/stay on topic if choosing to be present in THIS thread.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And as it concerns the subject of the OP/discussion...

A
Reparations, as I cited earlier, have already been paid. Tell me Gxg, those billions of dollars Obama signed over, from whom did that money come?

It has already been noted where no one was ignorant of reparations as CNN noted it was well - but reparations are not what the central focus of the discussion is - and since you insist on bringing it up, it should be noted again even Native Americans have discussed how reparations aren't what they are concerned for as that's not enough - it's about land stewardship and recognizing the fact that land has been stolen and others need freedom to govern themselves in accordance with their tradition/customs:

• Why Native Americans don’t want reparations - The Washington Post

• US should return stolen land to Indian tribes, says United Nations | US news | The Guardian

• Justice for Native Americans rests in restoring relationship with the land, not reparations | The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star

• Beyond Reparations: An American Indian Theory of Justice - Ohio State University

People immigrating to the U.S are not concerned with reparations - as there have been plenty simply noting Native American background. And in even trying to ask "Well where does the money come from with that, Gxg?", the bottom line is that with the U.S Border, we already waste billions in tax money yearly on Border Control because we don't understand immigration reform. That money is not spent wisely because of a lack in understanding with what it means to actually treat others properly.

But again, the main topic has been discussed consistently - and if being present in the thread, it needs to be respected. As noted before,

I see as hypocrisy and irony of anti-immigration complaints by non-Native people living in the United States.

NPR did an amazing review on the actual lives of others crossing the border and living in Mexico....more shared in BORDERLAND : NPR )

..it cannot be avoided that Native Americans have been very wide-spread in their travels throughout North America and many have set up some boundaries on them which do not keep in mind their own tribal borders. One example we can keep in mind are the Hopi for starters - with their borders crossing:

​

And of course, several other tribes who were spread out long before Europeans came...and others who remained but were separated when keeping in mind Mexico's territorial evolution (at the stage it was with the First Mexican Empire following the war of Mexican independence was one of the longest in America that ended in 1821, which eventually led to the independence

Linguistic Map of Mexico Indian Languages/Tribes

On land territories with American Indians endangered due to boundary changes, As noted earlier, Lipan Apache lands are in danger of confiscation and it has made a world of difference with the Border Patrols being directly responsible for discrimination toward them (as well as potential removal of their lands for more space - thus more of the same that American Indians have gone through with changes always happening) and other NDS groups - with the goal of the Border Patrol often focusing on those from Mexico even though they are Native American......and attached is the actual imagery of their land situation (which can also be found here in IN A BORDER WORLD ? Colonization under the guise of “immigrant rights” ). Others from the Apache nation have actively protested on the issue, as seen below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ElGBv9REE

• The Situation at the Texas-Mexico Border and the Racially Discriminatory Impact of the Border Wall on the Lipan Apache (Cúelcahén Ndé) Peoples in Texas

Some of the places near the border are not necessarily the best either due to the chaos that often happens on the border - a historical result of the actions of the U.S in failing to understand Native American perspectives from a Mexican perspective

1. Mexican Indians | RM.com ®

• http://app.emaze.com/@AOFZZFOW/tx-history-project-2015#1

​

For visual illustration, here's one good map - the light areas are the tribes original territory, whereas the dark areas are their current reservations ...AND the tribes are Yuma, Apache, Yaqui, Pima, and Kickapoo:

It's already the case that 2012 U.S. Census Bureau noted—in regards to "The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010”—that 175,494 Mexicans (Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano) self-identified as American Indian, consequently making them the fourth largest tribal group in the country.

As another noted best (for a brief excerpt):

...When I first got out of the Marine Corps, it was during the height of the unemployment problem in the 80’s. The only job I could find that summer was working alongside migrants picking tomatoes and pulling tassels on corn. I was astonished by their work ethic. These people would work long hours for just a few dollars. Whole families would work from dawn to dusk. I was in great shape then, considering I was fresh out from the Corps, and even the smallest migrant worker could out work me! Some were as young as eight years old. Since then, I have had great respect for migrant workers, as should all Americans. They work harder here in our country than most Americans! I now live in La Junta, Colorado; a town that is predominately Hispanic in decent. While living here I have become great friends to many Hispanic people and I sympathize with many of their concerns.

The greatest misperception about migrant workers coming from Mexico is misidentifying their ethnic heritage, while just embracing their national identity. This happened before in our country, just before World War II when Roosevelt refused to allow any more people to enter from Hungary, Romania, and Austria, because we just embraced their national identity and refused to recognize them as Jewish,(Lets not make the same racist mistakes as in the past). Most migrant workers coming from Mexico are descended from: Apache, Aztec, Amuzgo, Cheyenne, Ch'ol, Cochimi, Cocopa, Cora, Guarijio, Huichol, Hopi, Kickapoo, Kiliwa, Kumiai, Matlatzinca, Mayas, Mixe, Mixtec, Mojave, Nahuatl/Mexica, Navajo, OaxacaChontal, Opata, Paipai, PimaBajo, Popoluca, Pueblo, Purepechaor, Seri, Sioux, TabascoChontal, Tarahumara, Tepehu, Tlahuica, Tonto, Tubar, Yaqui, Yucatec, Yuma, Zapotec, Zoque,and Zuni Native American Indians. I suppose most neo-conservatives and other groups who oppose open borders would feel uncomfortable in demanding the government to kick-out “Native Americans” from the United States; it must make them feel more comfortable to use their self-justifying racist overtones and condemnations, while they just embrace their national identity and refuse to recognize their ethnic heritage.​

For more reference:

• 4th Largest Tribe in US? Mexicans Who Call Themselves American Indian - ICTMN.com

• THINKMEXICAN

​

​

​

We already have it where Native American tribes in the U.S. have their lands abused and are treated illegally on their own turf.

We also have it where the U.S. often claims Native Americans are not persecuted or mistreated - yet there is a disconnect in failing to see others immigrating other/detained illegally many times as harming Native Americans (others of whom have family in the U.S. and were separated at various points - some of those points involving the U.S. illegally shipping other U.S. citizens who were Mexican/from other places South of the Border out the country without cause).

We also have it where the U.S has intervened for its own economic interest in nations where Native Americans are prominent - as with Central/South America - and as a result of destablizing the areas, we make a life of violence possible causing them to flee to the U.S ....where they are often called "illegal" simply for coming over/seeking to join the U.S. properly and noting where the legal process was often not made available for them as it was proclaimed by officials. And on the issue of Native Americans, as Encyclopedia Britannica noted best:

Culturally, the indigenous peoples of the Americas are usually recognized as constituting two broad groupings, American Indians and Arctic peoples. American Indians are often further grouped by area of residence: Northern America (present-day United States and Canada), Middle America (present-day Mexico and Central America; sometimes called Mesoamerica), and South America.​

• Native Americans - Mesoamerica - DesertUSA

• The Mexican Connection and the far west of the American Southeast - JSTOR

• The Mesoamerican Connection to the Eastern United States | LostWorlds.org

• Smithsonian Museum: Natural Museum of Natural History - Unmasking the Mayans

Archaeologists such as Peter Jiménez Betts have pointed out how there was a vast world system ranging from the American Southwest to southern Mesoamerica.

Tribes from Mesoamerican culture were also present in the U.S. before the borders began (when Mexico included territory ranging from Texas to California and tribes were all present there) - with their culture shaping multiple Native American tribes in the U.S - with their complex culture thriving in places such as Cahokia, Missouri, the Virginias, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana until the 15th century. In fact, one early Spanish chronicler noted how a Wichita Indian of Kansas, in 1544, knew some Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs...

All of that is said to reiterate the point that one cannot separate what happened with Mesoamerica from what occurred for Native Americans in the U.S when it comes to identity We already have Mayan artifacts/ruins found in Georgia - as well as modern day Mayans in general living here as was mentioned in #163 on Mayan immigration in the U.S./their solidarity with American Indians in the U.S.)....and they are also having some of the same battles with being mistreated due to how they look and the stereotypes of being seen as "illegal" when they actually were here longer than the other descendants of Europeans. Others like the Creek Indians of Georgia have pointed out how South American and Mayan DNA was a part of their makeup in Southern Appalachians - with them going to war with others saying there's no way Mayans made it as far as Georgia....more in http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/cherokee-dna.htm

All of this will always go back to seeing if you actually respect Native Americans.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I know that my people were not made citizens of the United States until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.

Sometimes things which others desire may take a lot of time...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We don't want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace.

Something I came across of late - which was a very excellent presentation on the subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHNlel72eQc

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Don't forget the Buffalo Nickel.

Used to collect coins with my dad, so I find this stuff interesting.

If we reworked what we had, that would be interesting....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

 

[Gxg (G²)]

These are my founding fathers...

And this is our Flag...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

These are my founding fathers...

And this is our Flag...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

These are my founding fathers...

And this is our Flag...

 

[Red Fox]

Gxg (G²), I really like the images you have recently posted. I have quite a few of my own, but I don't know if I should post some of the ones I have or not. One more thing, I read the post you asked me to comment on, but there is a lot of material and information to cover. Is there something very specific you would like to talk about in that particular post? I think that would be easier for me to comment about, if we took it one small step at a time.

 

[Red Fox]

When I saw this image, I then remembered this one.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Gxg (G²), I really like the images you have recently posted. I have quite a few of my own, but I don't know if I should post some of the ones I have or not.

Providing that it is not offensive as CF has asked, I'd have no issue with it

As long as you use discernment/wisdom which I know you will and always strive for - and glad the images connected with you.

One more thing, I read the post you asked me to comment on, but there is a lot of material and information to cover. Is there something very specific you would like to talk about in that particular post? I think that would be easier for me to comment about, if we took it one small step at a time.

Of course - my apologies for not being more clear. On what was shared in #144, . My main concern was did it make sense overall with what was said in regards to the Cycle of Genocide Chart you shared and how that applied with the mass deportations of Mexican-American citizens in the 1930s (as well as the deportations of American Indian tribes to Mexico alongside removing of Mexicans who were Native American and how they were constantly moved around during the 1920s/1930s with being brought in for work - and then disposed of. Does that make sense?

Also, with the collective amnesia of those events in U.S history when it comes to America and saying doing things legally will always be rewarded with fair treatment as evidenced with the mistreatment of the Tohono O'odham Nation based on looks alone and others avoiding being able for centuries to pass freely through desert region separated by the U.S./Mexico border - even though their Tribal Land rights say they have freedom to move and others have ignored their Treaty with the U.S) - what were your thoughts on the issue on how those who do conquering can often fail to see themselves doing exactly what they say they hate? As it concerns the post, it really is up to you in covering what you felt connected with you

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When I saw this image, I then remembered this one.

I appreciate the extra phrases they added in with that picture - really powerful

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

So wait.. let me understand better.. do certain tribe reservations cross the U.S.-Mexican border? And are current immigration policies are deporting native amercians who are allowed to freely cross the border on tribal lands?

Or do those treaties you post grant natives the power to freely cross to borders from tribal land to tribal land.. across U.S. land into reservations from Mexico?.. the problem being that border agencies and immigration policies make no distinction between a non-native mexican and um.. "regular" mexican?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

So wait.. let me understand better.. do certain tribe reservations cross the U.S.-Mexican border? And are current immigration policies are deporting native amercians who are allowed to freely cross the border on tribal lands?

Precisely. Additionally, despite their treaties allowing them Sovereignty over their own lands and ability to live out their customs, Border Patrol militarization has been negatively harming them -with others having threats against them to take their land away on top of being treated as "illegals" on their own land and having centuries of practice crossing over borders. This happens in the U.S./Canada border as well - seeing tribes which were divided and have tribal councils with other tribes on both sides of the border (as allowed by the Jay Treaty respecting that). For migratory people, having a border that divided their land in half was a big problem - and laws were made to protect them/give them freedom to freely cross over borders

But those laws are not being remembered or respected.

In the event it was missed, this may help to clarify things a bit..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTntHbgY_QY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8pRnRgk9U

border agencies and immigration policies make no distinction between a non-native mexican and um.. "regular" mexican?

Identification has often been an issue since people are mistreated many times on the basis of how they look

In the event one wants more clarification, I'd suggest going here to study..as said before:

.....the issues of legal documentation are a significant factor in the difficulty of crossing the border since up until the 1980s, most tribal members were born at home without birth certificates ( as in the O’odham tradition, births were not recorded in writing, but were remembered by elders who passed them on orally) - and this is even more problematic when remembering that the Gadsden Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo recognized the rights of Indigenous Peoples to maintain land, culture, and religion, regardless of political borders and meaning current U.S. immigration policies violate treaty obligations[/URL].

• Globilization -Tohono O’odham tribes of the Southwest

• The Tohono O'odham - e-Education Institute

As another noted (for brief excerpt) in U.S.-Mexico border wreaks havoc on lives of an indigenous desert tribe -Al Jazeera
:

After the Mexican-American War, the international boundary between the U.S. and Mexico was drawn at the Gila River, just north of the O’odham ancestral lands. But the Gadsden Purchase in 1854 redrew the border right through O’odham territory. The O’odham were never consulted.

“They just drew a line, and when they drew that line O’odham in Arizona became citizens or were considered part of the U.S., O’odham in Mexico of course were not,” said Carlos G. Veléz-Ibáñez, director of the School of Transborder Studies at Arizona State University. “Unlike some of our Canadian borders, you don’t have the opportunity of dual citizenship or being able to determine which country you’re a citizen of.”

In the aftermath of 9/11, O’odham living on the U.S. reservation were forced to deal with the unintended consequences of a militarized border: Border Patrol agents harass and treat them as undocumented migrants on their sovereign land. Their desert landscape and wildlife get clobbered by migrants, traffickers and federal law enforcement.

.......according to the Tohono O’odham Nation’s Resolution 98-063, passed in 1998, “enforcement of U.S. immigration laws has made it extremely difficult for all Tohono O’odham to continue their sovereign right to pass and re-pass the United States-Mexico border as we have done for centuries as our members are routinely stopped by the U.S. Border Patrol, while others have been actually ‘returned’ to Mexico even though enrolled.”

Many O’odham in Mexico do not have the proper documentation now required to cross legally, whether birth certificates (lacking due to home births) or tribal IDs (because they lack the paperwork or witnesses required for enrollment)....Veléz-Ibáñez said the special relationship between the U.S. and native people beginning early on provided O’odham in the U.S. opportunities for education, economic development, housing subsidies, work and training programs — and health care — not available to O’odham in Mexico.

“The Indian health service is not a Cadillac program,” he explained, “but it’s still much better than what O’odham in Mexico had.”

When the border fence was erected — to this day just concrete vehicle barriers connected by chicken wire — it didn’t stop O’odham from crossing between the countries.

“The border meant not a thing to me,” said Henry Jose, a Navy veteran whose story was included in “It Is Not Our Fault,” a collection of testimonies from O’odham on both sides of the border used to make a case to Congress for citizenship for all O’odham. (The book was published in 2001, shortly before 9/11 changed the immigration debate drastically.) “The border is between the white people and the Mexicans but not us O’odham. These are Indian lands, O’odham lands.”​

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) and others have advocated for ensuring the full status of Tohono recognized - as seen in the Tohono O’odham Citizenship Act of 2013 - but others have been bothered greatly by that. Although Grijalva has asserted repeatedly that the issue is about citizenship - not immigration - and notes that the O'odham are "federally recognized tribal members by the secretary of the interior", others (such as Glenn Spencer, who heads the American Border Patrol) have said that Grijalva's bill "would essentially give the Tohono O'odham Nation the right to grant US citizenship"....and some lawmakers, such as Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) of Arizona, have said that one "cannot support legislation that would create 'pockets' of US citizens in a foreign country and establish a US citizenship document based on tribal membership" - yet thankfully, others such as Henry Ramon (vice chairman of the 25,000-member Tohono O'odham Nation) calls that reasoning flawed, pointing out that for centuries the O'odham passed freely through this desert region - until American treaties split their land in half.

And even outside of that group, we still see it where the U.S. continually shifts policy to harm First Nations groups...

QUOTE=Gxg (G²);67240349]....

• Ground Zero: The Tohono O'odham Nation

...............
Tohono O'odham and U S Border Patrol - YouTube



And for an actual map illustrating the reality that they are living in, one can go to Tohono O'odham Nation – Living through the border | U.S. - Mexico Borderlands and see the following as well as other illustrations helping to show the ways that Border Control has harmed Native Americans...

• O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective: Movement Demands Autonomy: An O'odham Perspective on Border Controls and Immigration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjlG7P3NDWU

.........................

What follows is illustration of the reservation for the Tohono O’odham in the United States and an approximation of traditional lands on both sides of the border - from “Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10: Southwest”; O’odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective; Resource Center at the National Museum of the American Indian, New York.

​

And as another wisely noted in 2 - Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education - Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education

One of the first laws that recognized the unique situation confronting Indigenous peoples of the borderlands was the Jay Treaty of 1794, which included a provision maintaining Aboriginal rights to freely pass and to carry on commerce across the U.S.-Canada border. A Canadian Indian, however, must have at least 50% blood quantum in order to pass freely between the two borders. After the War of 1812, the U.S. and Great Britain reiterated these rights in the Treaty of Ghent. Both treaties have been cited in immigration cases by Canadian and U.S. courts, confirming protection of Indian border-crossing and commerce rights. These rights, however, have come under attack and courts’ rulings on the matter are not consistent in upholding Indian rights under the treaties (Osburn, 1999/2000).

The U.S.-Canada border stretches 3.987 miles across North America. There are six federally recognized tribes in the U.S. that straddle the international border, but many more whose homelands are in the borderlands region. Map by Nakota Designs.

In the eastern half of North America, the Akwesasne Mohawks retain lands on both sides of the international border. ...On the southern border dividing the United States and Mexico, Native people are generally unable to employ the same rights as those who live along the Canadian border. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (which ended the Mexican–American War in 1848) and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853 separated tribal lands in the southern part of the United States. Due to the region’s remote location and sparse population at the time, the U.S. and Mexico did not acknowledge tribal border-crossing rights in these agreements or in subsequent federal laws except with the special case of the Kickapoo Tribe in southern Texas. Due to historical relocations and seasonal migration, Congress passed an act in 1983 allowing Kickapoo tribal members to freely pass across the U.S.-Mexico border (Osburn, 1999/2000). Until recently, tribes such as the Tohono O’odham in southern Arizona and northern Sonora continued normal travel in their homeland as they had done for centuries, prior to the formation of the foreign-imposed border (Tohono O’odham Nation, 2014).....Increased border control efforts such as the construction of the fence between Mexico and the United States have greatly impacted cross-border tribal relationships. The Indian communities who are affected include the Lipan Apache, the Kickapoo Tribe, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo near El Paso, the Tohono O’odham in southern Arizona, the Kumeyaay in southern California, and the Cocopah of the Colorado River Delta (University of Texas at Austin School of Law, n.d.; Villanueva, 2008).

​

[/QUOTE]​

 

[Sistrin]

Incorrect again - and as said, off-topic - as the main focus was on the subject of those whom people focus upon when it comes to immigration and seeing who they actually are.

Your argument then is when you use the term illegal immigrants you somehow are not talking about illegal immigrants, and when you attempt to compare illegal immigrants to Native Americans somehow you are not actually comparing the two issues. Ok.

By the way, it is the Inca empire, not the Incan empire.

The discussion was always centered on discussing people whom the conversations on illegal immigration or immigration generally center upon and their identity...

For the record, I ask this question with all due respect and only in the context of greater understanding. Is English a second language for you?

The topic was NEVER about seeing if illegal immigration being good or something to champion as much you wish to claim otherwise against the OP...

Another strawman.

Seriously, I entered this thread with the understanding that given you posted it in the Politics forum you were doing so because you actually wanted to discuss the issue as opposed to pontificating punctuated by tossing out a bunch of internet memes. Regardless, my opposition to your position is and has been based on your continued attempt to justify illegal immigration via the comparison of illegal immigrants from south of the US border to native born Native Americans.

You make that comparison again here:

Harping on "You're focusing on Illegal immigration!!!" is willfully ignoring the context of the OP when the subject was on the people being accused of illegal immigration or demonized for mass immigration in general legally (concerning those against many immigrants coming to the U.S.). I don't support illegal immigration even though I also advocate for those treated wrongly with Border Patrol and the inconsistency of always crying on about "illegal immigrants" when many came over legally/were deemed "illegal" due to not getting documents verified that they had - or being detained/not given quick process and others fleeing where they came from because of the damage WE in the U.S. caused in their origin countries.

Simply because you attempt to qualify this justification via the Native American comparison does not invalidate the justification.

Even with trying to accuse others of supporting illegal immigration simply because it was mentioned, it was already stated clearly that illegal immigration was never supported and I supported immigration reform - as I mentioned specifically to you before here...

......there have already been Conservative Cases for Open Borders...

...True Conservatives understand that there's a difference between Conservatism versus Restrictionism...

...Native Americans are Mexican as well...

...Native American groups have protested the issue with regards to U.S. Border Patrol laws/practices and have had solidarity with Mexican immigrants...

Open Borders is an illegal immigration issue. You obviously don't understand the Conservative position on the state of enforcement of US immigration law. Citing Ronald Reagan as leading the way displays a lack of understanding of the context of the Simpson/Mazzoli Act.

Time requires I return to this later.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When I saw this image, I then remembered this one.

Where was this specific image found by you originally, if I may ask?