Well, it’s not necessarily inaccurate

    by caticity

    38 Comments

    1. There was no government that required immigration standards at the time, ergo they did not/could not immigrate illegally.

      Edit: since this apparently needs to be said. No the natives did not have immigration standards. The Wampanoag (the tribe that first interacted with the pilgrims) literally just said “oh hey- there’s some funky white people here now. Let’s try and parlay with them to try and get help fighting off the Narragansett (rival tribe).” No concept of “these people arrived in our clearly defined legal borders without permission and violated our visa process” existed.

      The modern concept of a visa did not exist until after WWI when nations needed a way to track all the people that fled during the war.

    2. When someone calls the europen colonisers/conquerors of the new world illegal immigrants, do they automatically agree that today’s illegal immigrants are colonisers/conquerors, or they can not sum up 1+1

    3. Altruistic_Coast4777 on

      Locals didn’t probably have concept of Borders and they were more flexible on Europe too

    4. Dank_lord_doge on

      Weren’t most puritans who came to America kicked out of Europe for their religious beliefs?

    5. Gas_mask_noise on

      So the natives were bigots that should of welcomed the pilgrims into their lands and offered them health care

    6. CommitteeofMountains on

      Wasn’t this group specifically given clearance, as the Wampanoag needed someone to shoot the Narragansett?

    7. So you’re telling them illegal immigrants come to take their land and put them in reservations?

    8. It always makes me laugh when people think they’re clever with this, its the strongest anti-immigration argument possible lol. 

      It did not go well for the existing population now did it. 

    9. SoLongHeteronormity on

      People are being all pedantic over the term “illegal,” but considering that there are colonists on the record expressing the opinion that their contracts with the Native Americans were not entirely above board, I’m not going to argue the word.

      If those contracts shouldn’t have been held up in a British court of law, then it might as well have been illegal. (Saying should, not would, because, obviously, just because magistrates and justices SHOULD do a certain thing, doesn’t say they actually would)

    10. UnhappyImplement724 on

      War on immigration should change, people just want to deport or hate on everyone, but forget that the true way to combat public unrest is just deport the foreign criminals and/or arrest violent offenders. Dont let your own people suffer because of stupid individuals.

    11. It is inaccurate because their was no law against immigration and further more they were not immigrants, they were colonizers.

    12. Late-External3249 on

      Counterpoint: The natives were against diversity, immigration, and tried to prevent the English from practicing their cultural tradition of setting up colonies.

    13. So illegal immigrants should be driven out at once and without pity, lest they conquer the host country and commit genocide on the natives?

    14. This isn’t the own you think it is. And the idea that because something bad happened in the past means you can’t call it out now is beyond stupid.

    15. It’s entirely inaccurate, they either arrived on a land without state and laws or a land that was captured by a state which legalized their settlement.

      Also, the argument this makes is actually the total opposite of what was intended.

    16. I wonder if there were natives shouting down people stating a need to secure the border for fear of worse down the line…

    Leave A Reply