Free college tuition for illegal immigrants and more!

[Texas_Roofer]

There are plenty of contemporary records of the English colonists’ dealings with Powhatan. They give us a clear picture of the customs and practices of him and his people.

Wow, the colonists reported they did not break the law, maybe we should rewrite our legal system to allow the accused of deciding?

They didn’t have to speak for all indians – they only had to speak for themselves.

Which makes the issue irrelevant

Now, how about you giving some evidence that the Powhatan Confederacy had immigration laws?

And why should I do that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wow, the colonists reported they did not break the law, maybe we should rewrite our legal system to allow the accused of deciding?

Can you reword that so it makes sense?

Which makes the issue irrelevant

Are you under the impression that the indians were a single nation, with a single set of laws and customs that applied to all, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego?

The “law” in the area around Jamestown was the rule of Powhatan. If you claim “the indians” had laws banning immigration, then you must show the Powhatan Confederacy had such laws.

And why should I do that?

So as to conform to the rules of logic and gentlemanly debate, of course.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Can you reword that so it makes sense?

probably however I see no reason to, here is a hint: When someone is accused of a crime do we first ask how much we like them then decide how to proceed?

Are you under the impression that the indians were a single nation, with a single set of laws and customs that applied to all, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego?

again irrelevant, either the original claim can be verified or it cannot

The “law” in the area around Jamestown was the rule of Powhatan. If you claim “the indians” had laws banning immigration, then you must show the Powhatan Confederacy had such laws.

So as to conform to the rules of logic and gentlemanly debate, of course.

It would seem you have violated your own rules which is fitting as the debate was the claim: “Our forefathers were not illegal immigrants. When they came here, there was no law against immigration.” - post 18

 

[vern_humphrey]

probably however I see no reason to, here is a hint: When someone is accused of a crime do we first ask how much we like them then decide how to proceed?

I gather you think that means something, but danged if I can make heads or tails of it.

again irrelevant, either the original claim can be verified or it cannot

And the original claim is that “the indians” had immigration laws.

Not a smidgen of evidence has been advanced in support of that claim.

It would seem you have violated your own rules which is fitting as the debate was the claim: “Our forefathers were not illegal immigrants. When they came here, there was no law against immigration.” - post 18

The burden of proof is on him who asserts the positive. If you say they had immigration laws, it’s up to you to prove it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I gather you think that means something, but danged if I can make heads or tails of it.

And the original claim is that “the indians” had immigration laws.

citation for this “claim” please

Not a smidgen of evidence has been advanced in support of that claim. .

citation for this “claim” please

The burden of proof is on him who asserts the positive. If you say they had immigration laws, it’s up to you to prove it.

key word is " if "

 

[vern_humphrey]

citation for this “claim” please

Here are a few quotes from the thread:

i wonder what would have happened to the pilgrims if the indians had enforced anti-illegal immigration laws.

it does show that this country was founded on illegal immigration and the help provided by the natives to the land.

… this is a nation founded by illegal immigrants!

Clearly, there are those who claim “the indians” had immigration laws, and that the settlers came here in violation of those “laws.”

citation for this “claim”

You’re perfectly free to advance any information you can find that “the indians” had immigration laws, and that the settlers came here in violation of those “laws.”

please key word is " if "

If you don’t say the colonists were here “illegally,” then the argument is over.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Here are a few quotes from the thread:

Clearly, there are those who claim “the indians” had immigration laws, and that the settlers came here in violation of those “laws.”

You’re perfectly free to advance any information you can find that “the indians” had immigration laws, and that the settlers came here in violation of those “laws.”

If you don’t say the colonists were here “illegally,” then the argument is over.

More “ifs” if, if, if,

I wonder why the “if they are white” always comes up? maybe it is because some were white and some were not? If they are white we need not know about the law, if their not white the law is the issue?

 

[vern_humphrey]

More “ifs” if, if, if,

I wonder why the “if they are white” always comes up? maybe it is because some were white and some were not? If they are white we need not know about the law, if their not white the law is the issue?

“If their not white?”

Is there some meaning in all this verbiage?

 

[jman507]

I suppose we dissolve the whole union, and settle on the law of the land 1000 years ago. Then again what was the precedent before that? Or was there even a precedent for precedent?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I suppose we dissolve the whole union, and settle on the law of the land 1000 years ago. Then again what was the precedent before that? Or was there even a precedent for precedent?

You may be onto something. The correct answer should be timeless, as closed borders with no trade or another answer? Did you know Economics = Trade.

 

[jman507]

You may be onto something. The correct answer should be timeless, as closed borders with no trade or another answer? Did you know Economics = Trade.

Nah nah, here is the solution, dissolve the union. Turn the US into a rat hole full of war lords and famine and such. Then we can see if Mexico will accept people from the US.