We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, March 11. 2016
I am absolutely opposed to illegal immigration. They are uninvited guests, crapping on our rules and laws. I know that most Dems and the Chamber of Commerce don't care - or want more, but I believe immigration law is a national decision. Laws already exist. They can be changed by Congress.
I have no dislike of Mexicans or Guatemalans. All I ask is that they apply for residency and/or citizenship like everybody else.
H/t American Digest. Their generosity was suicidal.
Democrats Propose Lawlessness and Call It Immigration Policy
How Immigration Reform Would Re-Form America - The devastating truth that's not being discussed by politicians or journalists.
German Government Provides Sex Ed for Muslim Colonists
German Government Provides Sex Ed for Muslim Colonists - See more at: http://moonbattery.com/?p=69796#sthash.Q2FjJGbS.dpuf
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"All I ask is that they apply for residency and/or citizenship like everybody else."
Really? And who exactly asked the Massachusetts, Detroit, Mohawk, Dakota, or Iroquois when all you pre-Americans showed up. And as Americans moved west, did anyone ask for permission to enter tribal lands of the Sioux, Apache, Navajo or Miwok?
I would guess they would have been very happy if your ancestors had asked nicely, rather than with a sword or musket.
How very American of you to impose your religion, your language and your culture on everyone that was already there, in their own lands, minding their own business. And then your government rounded them all up on reservations when they became an annoyance to the "illegal aliens" calling themselves Americans.
Funny how history has a way of repeating itself.
Hope you have fun with all of the Syrian/Muslim immigrants that you so kindly invited into your country.
Ah yes, the complete fiction of the noble savage living in harmony with mother earth and other tribes. So, what makes it their land other than they were squatting on it. It's not like we didn't ask and they didn't say no. We're still reimbursing the tribes for the land we "stole." Now, dear German Karl, let's have a discussion about your fuhrer and Poland.
Germans never have recognized either the sanctity nor the importance of borders, both with respect to keeping people out of their own country or keeping themselves out of other people's country.
The noble savage was anything but!
I would have thought a German might have been just a tad more circumspect about drawing attention to the historical record regarding territorial expansionism and treatment of other ethnicities.
In New England, the Puritans were allowed to settle by the inhabitants, and in some cases encouraged. There was a wide variety of welcomes, and many tribes eagerly sought trade and goods, and more especially, allies against other tribes. Others resisted all Europeans. Part of this was a result of the huge depopulation of the native population due to contact diseases from the traders who did not settle permanently, farther north. The natives were in many cases devastated, and believed there was plenty of room for settlers because 90% of some areas were wiped out. Tribes might side with the English, Dutch, or French against each other. (See also Crusades, BTW. Not monolithic.)
Farther west, tribes fought each other. Back in Europe, tribes fought each other. New England enjoyed 50 years of (comparative) peace.
Violence and deception against natives was real. But disease and alcohol were far and away the major vectors of conquest.
The Apache were one of the fiercest tribes who were not native to the Southwest. In the 13th & 14th century Athabaskan Indians came from the North (Canada I believe) and settled in the Southwest. But of course there were already tribes living there. The new children of Gaia simply killed and enslaved the previous children of Gaia. This went of for millennium before Europeans arrived on these shores. Who were the "rightful" inhabitants of these lands? The ones who first arrived here perhaps 18,000 years ago? Or the second great wave of immigrants who killed and enslaved the previous residents? Or any of the waves of immigrants from Asia that landed here? Or perhaps those warring tribes who lived here but decided to look for greener pastures and killed and enslaved the gentle savages who already occupied those lands? It is a myth that some group is "native" and that is true not just in the Americas but in all of Europe and Asia. What we know in our history is just the stories of those who survived and wrote the history. Every land was fought over and taken by force including Germany. You are not "native" to Germany, do not fool yourself, you are merely the latest to occupy those lands. Even today we can see the next invasion and bloody battle shaping up in Europe (and the U.S. too). Our/your grass is greener and the "immigrants/invaders" intend to have it. The Indians were not "native" to the Americas they were simply the last surviving people here when a larger immigrant population displaced them.
It seems to me that it is Herr Horst, Germany and the Germans replicating the fate of the Massachusetts, Detroit, Mohawk, Dakota, or Iroquois.
And these modern day Teutons are succumbing with far less resistance than that displayed by the Sioux, Apache, Navajo or Miwok.
The problem is that the immigration procedure that exists is totally broken. I was considering emigrating to "The Land Of The Free", until I found out that 1) It would take years to do all the paperwork, 2) Cost thousands in lawyer fees and 3) Americans have less freedoms than Canadians.
Even though I am self-employed and not interested in collecting a cent in welfare, the process would take years.
I would have more success swimming across from Cuba.
EarlW - excellent points.
I suspect that most Americans have no problem with immigration in general and probably even, H-1B issues aside, with an official guest worker program.
What most Americans have objected to is allowing vast numbers of non-citizens to enter without any documentation or tracking while making the official immigration and naturalization process a quota-driven obstacle course unless you're 'connected' (see H-1B and EB-5 visa abuse). Add to this mix concerns over refugee resettlement and high-profile lapses in vetting visa applications, DC ignoring legitimate concerns as just 'racism' and you wind up with Trump.
I would go one step further. Americans are irritated that people from other countries want to take advantage of this system, but they understand the drive for it. Americans are infuriated that our own politicians seek to find ways to make this easier for them.
We Germans managed to keep the Romans out for quite some time and we were actually the least expansionistic of the European countries (after Switzerland and Italy). Read your history, Portugal, Spain, France, the Netherlands and England were running around slaughtering the natives everywhere they went for over 500-years.
Our Danish and Swedish neighbors were terrorizing all of Europe on and off for hundreds of years. The Swedes even marched from their homeland to burn down castles in the Vogesen (but I doubt you'll find that in your history books)
WW1 and WW2 were not wars about expansion, they were pre-emptive and defensive, but you'll actually have to read the real history of Europe, not the nonsense they teach you in your history lessons in school, to know that.
I grant we are taught but one side, and there is more to say on the topic. I agree also Germany has generally not been a colonial or expansive power to the extent that other nations of Europe were. But I think E.H. Gombrich might disagree with your thought that the wars were essentially defensive.