Go to Personal Poetry
- Add a comment
- Go to The letter the New York Times didn't have the guts to print
Hi CPK I just peeped in to say hello and I'm a coward. I ain't getting into
this. My ancestors were immigrants into a new land too and at least one that I know of illegally jumped ship to do so.
posted by
Kabu
on January 7, 2008 at 8:10 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Sorry, cp, I do not agree at all!
Of course, we must not forget to send the Normans back, not just to Normandy, but to Scandinavia; and the Saxons to Saxony; and, while we're at it, we should all go back to Africa, because that's were we're all from, once upon a time...
CP, I respect you immensely, and I respect your position, which, I am sure, is based on the loftiest of ideals. But, as Plato found out when he made the attempt at Syracuse, you cannot fashion the world that way. The real world intrudes. He ended up in jail, not because the others were evil, but because you cannot construct the world, not even just a city, in the image of ideas; because ideas are abstractions; and while the real world will sometimes bend to abstractions, it often will not. Quite apart from the fact that ideas can and do also clash.
History is the process of ongoingly fashioning an ever-changing human world. We have a hard time understanding the process, and we will never fully comprehend it. But the world of today is really not the world of yesterday, much less that of the Mayflower, or that of our migration out of Africa...
And if in today's world the majority of a sovereign people want to limit immigration to what they regard as legal immigration, based on the ideas of democratic government and sovereignty, they have a perfect right to do so...
In the end, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 6, 2008 at 6:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Sorry, cp, I do not agree at all!
The relevant legal entity at the time of the Mayflower and within the context of the European conquest of the Americas was the British crown, which had granted them the right to settle in "Northern Virginia". This extended only so far as the Hudson River. When the ship was unable to continue any further than Cape Cod, both crew and passengers realized that they were beyond any dominion of Britain and thus not only illegally immigrating to lands outside the legal limits of any colony but, again within the context of that invasion, in a state of lawlessness and anarchy. This was the context aboard ship, where the Mayflower Contract was drawn up and signed. It made them a law unto themselves and controverted their illegality.
There was, of course, another legal framework in place, in varying degrees of formalization. Within the context of the nomadic people living on the land being invaded, the Europeans were a singularly ungrateful lot who showed up unannounced with an amazing sense of "entitlement". They were allowed to pitch their unusual camps and then they didn't take them down. In the rare cases where they actually paid anything for use of hunting grounds, they paid a summer's rent and then proceeded to tear down the woods and make the area unsuitable for hunting. The Europeans eventually flouted practically every law and custom of the area, even if they were, in desperation, initially somewhat respectful and thankful for native assistance in their plight.
Thus, in either legal framework, the Mayflower passengers and those of the crew who stayed were illegal immigrants to the New England area. It is extremely hypocritical for the legal entity which arose out of that illegal immigration and colonization to state that any peaceful immigration is illegal. Indeed, to do so is to affirm that we are still in a state of illegality and that, yes, their descendants should be deported to England. That no one will seriously consider that an option only makes clearer that we do not have any basis for declaring immigration illegal.
With respect to your characterization of the wave of Mexican immigration as an "invasion", nothing could be further from the truth. The actual immigrants are coming over unarmed and certainly are not formed into armies. You and the various media "stars" who promote this view owe an apology to the Mexican immigrants.
Carl Peter Klapper
PS: For the record, I am descended from Richard Warren and John Howland, who came over on the Mayflower.
PPS: Also, what I am advocating as a solution is the repeal of all laws restricting or otherwise declaring immigration "illegal" retroactively from the founding of our republic. In addition, any immigrant who can show that they have complied with the citizenship requirements set forth in the U. S. Constitution should be declared a citizen retroactively to when they first met those requirements.
PPPS: It is has been one of the greatest embarrassments in U. S. History that we have placed quotas on immigration from certain regions or countries. I find it hard to believe that I am the only person that finds it obnoxious that, in this so-called enlightened age, we continue to do so. It is akin to us still having slavery.
posted by
cpklapper
on January 5, 2008 at 9:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Sorry, cp, I do not agree at all!
The settling of the Americas was not so much an 'immigration' but rather a 'conquest', the main distinction being the use of force in the latter case. And I invite anyone who is troubled by that, be he American or Canadian, to atone for that by returning to the lands of his forefathers. I suspect you would not find too many takers.
And neither America nor Canada can be 'illegal' because there is no legal framework in which that could be established. 'Legality' and 'illegality' do require a body of laws and a jurisdiction in terms of which these can be established.
At the time of the Mayflower, there was no such entity as the United States of America. But there is now, and has been for some time. The US, as a sovereign nation, is entitled to pass laws through democratically elected governments. Among these laws are those dealing with immigration. There is well-defined, legal process. Immigrants who avail themselves of that process, and who are admitted, are legal immigrants. Those who do not, but come streaming across a poorly defended border are illegal immigrants. The current problem may well have arisen because successive US governments have not seen fit to enforce the law and protect the border, but that does not make these immigrants legal.
As a matter of fact, I refer to these 'immigrants' as 'invaders', particularly in view of the fact that they are supported in this invasion by the Mexican government, and because of their amazing sense of 'entitlement'...
If Americans decide they want to be subject to a Mexican conquest, fine. Then they should pass the appropriate legislation...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 5, 2008 at 7:33 PM
| link to this | reply
posted by
afzal50
on January 5, 2008 at 1:56 AM
| link to this | reply