Pro-illegal immigration hypocrisy

Many on the political left, who support the influx of illegals across our southern border, often deride those who oppose an open door immigration policy as simply being racist nativists.  They point out what, to them, looks to be an inconsistency: remember when the white European illegal immigrants came into America, they were considered patriots.  No one on the left calls the American Indians xenophobes or racists for resisting the European invasion immigration. They in fact argue that the Europeans were wrong for coming into America to establish and “force” their culture which was foreign to the natives.  Aside from there being no immigration laws to be broken in the 1600s, if the scenarios are the same or similar, shouldn’t the political left be siding with the political right on this?

You can’t on the one hand claim opponents of illegal immigration are wrong but the American Indians were right…if the situations are as similar as they’re claimed to be.  If it was wrong for Europeans to come into the American Indian’s land, then isn’t it also wrong for South and Central Americans to come to the United States, illegally?  Or is it now a matter of two wrongs make a right.

The political left also takes issue with conservatives (racist white people) suggesting that immigrants, illegal or otherwise, ought to assimilate with the American culture i.e., learning English and joining in on other forms of “Americanism”.  But isn’t that what they’re complaining about?  The Europeans, not only didn’t assimilate, they forced their culture upon the American Indians.  The political left takes great pride in suppressing the “American way of life” when it comes to immigrants.  Every effort is made to alleviate them from conforming.  Bilingual government forms, banning the American flag from being displayed, and prohibiting other displays of blatant Americanism.  We are told we must tolerate the import of many cultures into our melting pot.

I can’t help be feel there’s a bit of talking out of both sides of the mouth on this one.  If it was wrong for Europeans, shouldn’t it also be wrong for Illegals now?  And if it was right for American Indians then, shouldn’t it be right for Americans now?  Or is it all just a matter of skin color and political posturing?


  1. The ignorance of these leftists is astounding. When the Europeans immigrated, there was no nation here. All that lived here were numerous tribal groups. Since that time, we turned it into a sovereign nation with laws. In order to maintain sovereignty, we must control immigration.

    Guess what, these new people are violating laws and forcing ahead of the line while the legals WAIT their turn. There is no similarity between the old and the new. NONE

  2. If South Americans were moving into the U.S. and taking land by force, killing as many Americans as possible, putting bounties on the scalps of any white person in the territory of Fort Worth, purposefully engineering biological weapons to kill whites, or any of the other bloody horrid things we did to Native Americans- this post might make sense. If the persecuted pilgrims came to the new world begging for asylum, offering to live in Native villages subject to Native laws- maybe you might have a point.
    That said, a sovereign nation has a right to engineer its own immigration policy- and the government has every right to decide how the nation receives new immigrants. I don’t speak for all “lefties”- but the main criticism I have of U.S. immigration policy revolves around the criteria they use to choose new Americans and finding a way to legalize immigrants who have been living and working in America for years.
    I don’t see any contradiction in being critical of an immigration policy at all. It seems to me that is part of a healthy democracy.

    • George,
      You are typical of the LEFTIST with your claims about what the Europeans did. SOME Europeans went after the Indians living here, but most did not until the INDIANS attacked. The Indians did not have a sovereign nation here – there were multitudes of tribes often at warfare with each other. And there were no “purposefully engineered biological weapons” used to kill anyone.

      There was nowhere in the New World to “beg for asylum” because there was no nation here, no national boundaries.

      An immigration policy has to protect the sovereignty of the nation, and our current immigration policy does nothing in that regard, which is why criminals, gang members, and terrorists are crossing the Mexican border into the USA. And that is why people are coming for “free” education and health care put on the backs of tax-paying citizens.

  3. paynehollow says:


    When the Europeans immigrated, there was no nation here. All that lived here were numerous tribal groups. Since that time, we turned it into a sovereign nation with laws.

    Sorry for breaking my “giving up on y’all” code, but just to offer a bit of fact to this sort of statement:

    When the Europeans arrived here, there were multiple nations of people living here already, each with their own codes and laws. Were there boundaries? Probably not in the sense that we have and enforce boundaries, but boundaries are only one way with dealing with nationhood, not the only way.

    That native peoples did not have a “civilized nation” in a manner that Europeans (or modern citizens of the US) would “approve” of does not mean they did not have nations. They did not need nor ask for our approval.

    I rather like the ancient method of open borders, within reason, and not treating visitors like criminals. You know, like Israel did in the OT and like the native nations did here in this part of the world. Good, moral model, it seems like to me.

    As long as the people you welcome don’t become barbaric in their response to that welcome.


    Click to access Indians_101.pdf

    You’re welcome.

    Carry on.

    ~Dan Trabue

    • Trabue,

      FACT: You equivocate with the word “nation” so as to pull your little game. You know darned well the definition I was using is not the same as you are using, and I’m sure everyone understood the meaning I was using.

      “NATION” as used by me is a sovereign country with borders, not a tribal situation which changed location as the traveled. Your definition would be okay with the nation of Israel before they settled in Canaan, while my definition would be the Nation of Israel now.

      Equivocation is a logic fallacy, even though you think it makes you sound so smart. In reality it just pointed out what a fool you are. Quit trolling.

  4. paynehollow says:

    “Indian nations have always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil… the very term, ‘Nation,’ so generally applied to them means, ‘A people distinct from others…'”

    ~Justice John Marshall, 1832

  5. paynehollow says:

    One question, then I’m leaving you with the facts provided:

    Who gets to decide the “right” definition of nation? The indian nations had, from our first days here, been considered legally to be independent nations. Do you mean that the first Europeans were mistaken to do so? Says who? On what basis is your one definition the Sole Right definition?

    As to my “knowing darned well” what you meant by “nation,” I’ll have to own up to not being able to read your mind. I was and am using the legal, dictionary definition of “nation” as it was understood hundreds of years ago and as it is still understood.

    I’ll let the facts speak for themselves. I am glad that you acknowledge that Israel used to be a nation, even before they fit the definition you prefer.


    • Trabue, are you really that stupid?

      There is more than one definition of the word “nation.” I just got through pointing out to you two different meanings. I used one meaning and you responded with another meaning. That is called equivocation.

      And those are the FACTS.

      No go troll elsewhere.

  6. Dan comes out of hiding and this is the best he has.

  7. Of course a nation is its people primarily, with geographic borders being a more secondary manner of identifying a nation. Today, it refers to the latter description more than the former. No mind reading required, only honesty and reason.

    I would also say that be it ancient Israel or the tribes of North American, those laws each had also defined those nations and determined who was or wasn’t welcomed. None of them would allow for absolute autonomy within the influence of the nation “welcoming” the alien. To pretend ancient Israel was an “open borders” situation is false, as there is no evidence that they did not insist aliens enter one terms of their choosing, but on the terms of Israel and its law.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: