Talk about obnoxious...

[Occhidiangela]

Your self-identification, in this context, is irrelevant to me. I am Canadian, not British-Canadian, or Slovak-Canadian or Balinese-Mongolian-Canadian, but I'm still decended from immigrants.

That is irrelevant. You are as native to Canada as a German born in Germany is native to Germany. If you choose to indulge in identity insecurity, that is your problem, please don't presume that I should do the same.

Unless you came over the Bering Strait (and even then, possibly) you or your ancestors came to an already-inhabited land. You are immigrants or the decendants of immigrants, and that is a fact.

That is still a fallacious argument, as I noted before. Part of The Big Lie is the presumption that there was "America" before the European migration west occured. Should I call all British "Germans and Saxons and Danes?" That is who migrated there. No, wait, I should call them Romans, who also migrated there. No, they are British.

"America" and specifically The United States of America, is not merely a piece of land, it is a nation state formed by a particular kind of people. The people, and their culture, is what make it what it is.

Being conquerors as well does not change matters.

Try reviewing about four millenia of Human History.

Conquering changes everything, for short term sometimes, for long term sometimes. For that matter, play is continuous, which is why I feel too many have their blinders on. The "conquest" by the cradle is an old, and well known policy.

The mores and norms of the conqueror change the shape of the society and culture. The Incas aren't much in evidence in Peru, are they? Their culture was over written.

Note: I didn't call it America, at that stage, although it was, having been named such by Amerigo Vespucci long before the USA ever existed.  I just said you (or your ancestors) came to this geographical location, and conquered it from those who were already there. Ironically, the people you conquered this particular area from (the border) were Mexicans, who are both Indigenous and European, in parts.

How about you read Ferenbach's history of Texas, then get back to me. (He also did an excellent treatment of the Korean War.) The Mexicans were heirs of the Spanish, who conquered a land. They in turn lost in the usual fashion: a war. The war, in good European fashion, was resolved by a treaty. Treaties are part and parcel to international law. It changed the conditions of sovereignty of part of a continent, as treaties often do. As a descendent of Enlightenment Europeans, I find your failure to grasp that puzzling.

I am disrespectful of your laws because I disagree with them. I am not disrespectful of your process. Do what you like with your borders, and do what you like with your laws. I'm just asking why you don't do something easy, humane and consistent with (a rather generous reading of) your historical ideals. If you want to do something brutal, isolationist and (IMHO) crazy, in the model of Soviet East Germany, feel free. It's your country.

The "easy" is to enforce the laws already on the books. The KISS principle applies. The isolationist jab is pure, unadulterated garbage. Legal immigration (I think the "quota" for Mexico is annually 300,000ish) would and should continue, in a lawful and orderly fashion. Or is "lawful and orderly" to you, Jester, fascism, totalitarianism, and communism? Are you advocating Anarchy? Make up your mind, please. My nation's borders are recognized under the international law you hold in such high esteem.

Because they're irritated, you should seal your borders and shoot to kill?

I said nothing about sealing borders. Thee are legal and legit border crossing rules and sites all along our border. They are to be used. To enforce that, force is required in my opinion, since recent history has shown that a border is ignored when not enforced.

Also: freeloaders? These are people doing some of the crappiest, lowest paid sweated work in the USA. Calling them freeloaders shows your contempt for them beyond what is warranted. They're lawbreakers, but not lazy ones. (By and large, of ourse. Every group is mixed.)

Do you really know what you are talking about, on the impact of illegal immigrants on the labor market, on crime, on social rot, and on exploitation of humans? As a minor example, the sweat shops in the garment districts of New York are still using illegal labor, who work in appalling conditions, illegally, and illegally oppressed by exploitive, unethical employers.

The "do you understand"s and the "way to perpetuate the big lie"s I'll ignore for now. As I've said before, if you want to argue like that I'd rather bow out than continue.

If you buy into the Big Lie, and then use it to support your argument, then I will point that out.

Occhi