It would seem that certain ‘people of indefinite nationality’ would like to assert that the United States, or large portions thereof, belong to a certain ethnic group, and the Caucasians should leave, or at least shut up. We are just immigrants, they say, and stole the land for the true owners, the ‘native americans.’ These folks want much of the United States to be returned to Mexico (who has done SUCH a good job with what they have already… /sarcasm)
Yes, my great-great-blah blah grandparents came to this country as immigrants, but their children were NATIVE American Citizens. Not native American as in teepees and buffalo hunts, but in terms of citizenship in the United States of America.
If you want to start the game of saying that makes ME an immigrant, we can do that too.
It all just depends on how far back you wish to go…
My family started showing up in the 1600s.
Most Hispanics have European blood from Spain starting back in the 1500s: that makes them immigrants to the entire new world just as I am.
According to the Smithsonian, the ‘Native Americans’ (Incans, Aztecs, Apache, you name ‘em) invaded the new world via land bridge around 7,000 years ago, and were not the first to do so. They were Asian Steppe people (for the most part) following the wild game; those already here (Clovis people, with European skull characteristics) were either destroyed, enslaved, or died out.
The Clovis people arrived as much as 12,000 years ago, and could still be considered immigrants, since man ‘evolved’ in Africa and NOBODY originated in the new world!
Since 99.999% of the Hispanic and Indian inhabitants of the new world have ancestors showing up as recently as 7,000 years ago, they are also 'immigrants by this standard.'
Heck, the Arabs and the Jews are STILL arguing over land disputes from 5,000 years ago: who is an immigrant there?
Back on point: What does it matter if your family arrived in America 400, 600, or 7,000 years ago? We are not talking about ancient history, but about civilized nation states, who sign treaties, make war, conquer, or cede land to each other.
Mexico gave up her rights north of the border when she scrapped the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, telling the INVITED gringo Mexican citizens in Texas that they were no longer citizens and had none of the rights promised them when they moved there. You see, the gringos were asked to settle in Texas, because they would be loyal to Mexico and were industrious. Ads were placed in newspapers along the east coast to bring them in.
Yes, they were lured in, granted citizenship, developed infrastructure and farms, but suddenly must leave or be subject to lawlessness by the Mexican government. That action led directly to the loss of Mexico’s northern provinces (remember the Alamo?), and is binding to this day. The Mexican regime of that time showed a substantial lack of good faith in dealings with other nations, and (like many other nations before and since) paid for their arrogance.
Let’s look at each side of the border today: deserts to the north bloom, highways promote commerce, and the rule of law (mostly) protects the innocent. South of that border? Not so much. Deserts are still arid wastelands. Gangs kill without consequences, many times with the blessing of the corrupt government. Citizens are serfs, and the rule of law is a joke. And groups like La Raza (and how is a group calling itself ‘the race’ not racist?) want to return whole states to that system…
The great Southwest is far better off with the border where it is.
And the ‘norteamericanos’ (aka ‘gringos’) will fight to keep it that way.