21 votes

Native American Man to Anti-Illegal Immigration Protesters: ‘You’re All F@%ing Illegal!’

Native American Man to Anti-Illegal Immigration Protesters: ‘You’re All F@%ing Illegal!’

The truth clearly has the power to break up a crowd of incognizant Arizona Sand Cutters. I gotta give it to this man, that is a bold and courageous stand he took.

http://disinfo.com/2013/10/native-american-man-anti-illegal-...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There is absolutely nothing

There is absolutely nothing libertarian in what you're saying.

>> A conquered people don't get to make the rules
So you want to be the one that makes the rules ... Are you able to do that now with the one party system? Do you think that you are not able to do that now because of the current 'illegal' immigration?

>> Who was here first is irrelevant. It is who is in control that makes the rules. And unfettered immigration will only do to us what was done to the previous people in control. Controlling the flow of legal and illegal immigration is necessary for self preservation.
Why this categorization of people into groups? And why the necessity that one group will lay the rules to the control the other group? Does libertarianism address these concerns already and isn't each individual the smallest minority that ever existed?

I am an immigrant and absolutely hate the taxes and government regulation but some of my friends (who are also immigrants) are progressives. None of us can vote, and contribute almost equally to the economy - so it is generally possible that immigrants can positively contribute to the country irrespective of their political affinity.

>> Now if the new immigrants were of a type of people that embraced liberty and less government I may have a different opinion. Clearly this is not the case so it is an act of preserving individual liberty to not allow people into our political system that would degrade our liberty.
You are attempting to fight a symptom rather than the disease. How do you plan to deal with the current bunch of pro-federal statists who are legal citizens of the US? Unchecked welfare is the core issue that makes immigration look like a problem. Do you think that your task of advancing liberty is significantly easier in the absence of 'illegal' immigrants?

What is not more libertarian than self preservation?

You have given clear example of what I was saying. "...but some of my friends (who are also immigrants) are progressives" That's the problem. You say they don't vote. Really? How often have you heard of illegal aliens obtaining SSN and stealing identities? Of course the illegals vote. That is why they are here. They are pawns of the powers that wish to enslave us. Therefore, they are an enemy to liberty, my liberty, your liberty.

I believe few immigrants, legal or illegal, are liberty minded. Most not only expect but demand government to subsidize their lives. The less of these types the better.

Controlling the flow of immigration to a level that promotes newcomers to assimilate to the ideas of liberty is a necessity we can't just ignore. Otherwise, liberty minded people will be diluted and liberty itself will vanish.

Would you restrict the

Would you restrict the movement of CA or NY (supposedly liberal) people into TX or ND/SD (supposedly conservative) states? Why you wouldn't?

The concept of a nation with a cultural identity is welcome and align with liberty, but the concept of a nation with just a political identity is useless and statist. Like I've said before in dailypaul, TX or NM people probably have more in common culturally with Mexicans than people from ND or SD.

Also, I believe that the Free State Project in NH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project) is a decent libertarian strategy (by working within the current system). Do you think that these migrators to NH are evil and that the people and sheriff of those NH towns are pro-libertarian and anti-statist in opposing these migrants?

Who was here first?

How much history has been forgotten?

Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-29/national/35443...

When the crew of the Virginia scallop trawler Cinmar hauled a mastodon tusk onto the deck in 1970, another oddity dropped out of the net: a dark, tapered stone blade, nearly eight inches long and still sharp.

Forty years later, this rediscovered prehistoric slasher has reopened debate on a radical theory about who the first Americans were and when they got here.

Archaeologists have long held that North America remained unpopulated until about 15,000 years ago, when Siberian people walked or boated into Alaska and then moved down the West Coast.

But the mastodon relic found near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay turned out to be 22,000 years old, suggesting that the blade was just as ancient.

Whoever fashioned that blade was not supposed to be here.

Its makers probably paddled from Europe and arrived in America thousands of years ahead of the western migration, making them the first Americans, argues Smithsonian Institution anthropologist Dennis Stanford.

Ancient DNA Links Native Americans With Europe

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/409.full

Where did the first Americans come from? Most researchers agree that Paleoamericans moved across the Bering Land Bridge from Asia sometime before 15,000 years ago, suggesting roots in East Asia. But just where the source populations arose has long been a mystery.

Now comes a surprising twist, from the complete nuclear genome of a Siberian boy who died 24,000 years ago—the oldest complete genome of a modern human sequenced to date. His DNA shows close ties to those of today's Native Americans. Yet he apparently descended not from East Asians, but from people who had lived in Europe or western Asia. The finding suggests that about a third of the ancestry of today's Native Americans can be traced to "western Eurasia," with the other two-thirds coming from eastern Asia, according to a talk at a meeting* here by ancient DNA expert Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen. It also implies that traces of European ancestry previously detected in modern Native Americans do not come solely from mixing with European colonists, as most scientists had assumed, but have much deeper roots.

Meh ... They crossed over the land bridge from Asia

Nobody truly takes ownership to crap

It doesn't matter what this guy says.

Because it has nothing to do with the current invasion by illegals. And just because these people don't understand that and/or just don't want to engage this guy, who is using his baby as a shield by the way, doesn't mean this guys rant is legitimate.

But there is a lesson to be learned here. If his ancestors had fought early enough for their land then perhaps they would still have it. But they didn't fight until it was too late and they were over run. Same thing is happening today.

So how would it be any

So how would it be any different if the Mexicans flooded into the U.S. and restricted white people to the crappiest pieces of land there was? Maybe after a few hundred years they would give us Casinos to say sorry.

I respect the right for people to lock their doors and not let people in their house against their will, also the same of a nation. The biggest reason to not let the mexicans in is because they are in desperate need of their own revolution in their own country, and the U.S. only acts as a steam valve to relieve that pressure.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Don't read more into what I say than what I say. The native Americans were screwed by those who immigrated here but that is a different story from the illegal hoard that is coming here now.

Allowing ourselves to be infiltrated now will not right past wrongs. The Native Americans didn't realize the change that was coming with the "pilgrims". Anyone with honest eyes knows the cultural change that comes with illegals, specifically from Mexico, and I don't want it.

a. They did fight for their

a. They did fight for their land and signed treaties that were not respected.
b. The "illegals" are for the most part mexicans. These are the indians / mestizos. You like to romanticize indians in movies but when you see them in real life then you put labels on them.
c. His rants are legitimate. Nobody invited those people who are protesting to Arizona. They were put there by a central government and imposed upon the original inhabitants of Arizona.

A.

A. Yes they fought but they waited to long before they did and lost what they had. Our "leaders" are doing the same thing.
B. When you say "You" are you referring to me in particular or are you using "You" as a general term? Because I have not romanticized anything nor do I think I have put a label on anyone. Culture is a determining factor of who you are dealing with, not just genetics.
C. He may have a point in his rant but it is meaningless now and has nothing to do with the current illegal problem.

I am not denying nor excusing what happened to the Native Americans. I'm just saying that this guy is just putting on a show because it's too late to change what's past but it's not to late to stop the invasion we face today.

bull

This "native" man's ancestors likely stole 'his' tribe's land under the feet of some other tribe, or sold it to European colonists as some did. For all he knows, he himself may be a descendant of Mexican people, or 'Europeans' from the time of the Clovis people (circa 12,000BC).

I'm not saying that many native tribes didn't get screwed over by the colonists, because most certainly did, but history isn't so black and white.

I can understand his POV, but it's inconsistent when you look at it long-term.

A signature used to be here!

Mexican people are indigenous people.

Some may have a drop or two of Spanish blood in them, but they are indigenous to Mexico AND parts of the U.S. Mexicans are the same color as me. I'm full blood Lakota. Go to Spain and the people are much lighter skinned, some with blond hair and blue eyes. Just because their surname is Spanish does not make them mostly Spanish. It's like saying an African slave who got the last name of Washington is European.

and that's just it

"[...] parts of the U.S."

That's just it, though. There are several 'Indian' tribes who can trace their lineage back to Mexico, so it doesn't make sense for any of them to claim that anything besides parts of the southwest U.S to be 'theirs'.

My point was that people act as if the natives were all one unified tribe that claimed ownership to the entire continent and have always been there, but it's just not true.

Also, I never said anything about complexion or surnames, so that's all irrelevant.

A signature used to be here!

Not really

The Manhattan tribe sold some of its land to Europeans. William Penn and the Quakers negotiated and bought land from Indians. Some land was just occupied by illegal aliens. Some Indians didn't even claim land and wandered about after game on land other tribes did the same with. The Europeans were just another tribe on that land.

Eventually Euro Americans just plain outnumbered the Indians and set up things the way they wanted. That's what will happen again if we take down our borders. Maybe this Indian was just giving us a warning of what happens

Constitutional government relies on having borders. It also gives Congress the power to determine immigration policy. Congress can theoretically, allow our Country to be overrun with peoples who have little knowledge of Constitutional government. The more holes a boat's hull has, the fewer races it will win. it is difficult to even budget if we don't know how many folks decide to come here.

Going back to Indians: The National Geographic Genome Project says that seven different groups of Asians came across at different times from places as diverse as SE Asia and the Urals. I don't suspect they always got along with each other either.

"Constitutional government"

"Constitutional government" => that is your definition of consitutional government and you go on with your own definitions. What if these people -i.e. Native - did not want your "constitutional government"? If it is ok imposing your idea of "government" on other people then do not cry when latinos outnumber and outvote you on certain issues.

You can either try to dialogue with other people in an honest way or try to impose your "govenment" ideas. Just don't complain when other people's ideas are imposed on you. That is going to happen whether you like it or not.

All Seriousness Aside...

I just happened to read this interesting and somewhat relevant article, this morning...

GENOMES
Ancient DNA Links Native Americans With Europe

"Now comes a surprising twist, from the complete nuclear genome of a Siberian boy who died 24,000 years ago—the oldest complete genome of a modern human sequenced to date. His DNA shows close ties to those of today's Native Americans. Yet he apparently descended not from East Asians, but from people who had lived in Europe or western Asia."

Ancient DNA Links Native Americans With Europe

Should native american Indians decide who says or not?

So am I to also believe that "native" american Indians were created by God on what is today the "country" known as the USA? Now that would make them true natives, wouldn't it?
Were they not at some point in the distant past immigrants to previously unoccupied or at least partially occupied lands?
Did they not also fight violently with each other over the use and possession of another tribe's territory?
When early settlers arrived, were there no unoccupied expanses of land that Indians were not "on"?
Upon what authority does this man lay claim to not also being here "illegally"? If his ancestors came up from "Mexico" and hooked up with an Eskimo and they started a tribe, did they get "permission" to be here from the "locals" of their time? Would that not make HIM also an illegal by his own definition?

Did american Indians have a Department of Immigration for an orderly population growth? Do we need such growth in our time?

O U R P L A N = R O N P U A L (Coinsidence? I think not.)

No, they shouldn't decide, but things would be easier to

tolerate if the U.S. honored the treaties in the first place. And our govt. is STILL breaking treaties. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4cBOF9DE10

It seems to me

the Immigration issue is not about Immigration but LAW vs NO LAW.

If there is no law so be it, if there is law so be it.

It looks to get very interesting.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Totally.

If there is law, it should be equally applied (LOL! A tall order, we know, right?).

What would the Founders do?

Would you Illegal Immigrant

Will you Illegal Immigrant sympathizers ever stop ? They come here illegally, work for under the table cash and drop babies by the dozens for the soul purpose of accessing the government boob and cost us BILLIONS of dollars every year, take jobs away from Americans and you people think there isn't anything wrong with this? Get a freaking clue! Al least we know who ISN'T paying taxes around here...sheesh...

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

I agree with Ron Paul

If we simply removed the incentives (AKA the Gubermint Boob) for them to illegally come here, we'd be begging them to come because the economy would be ten times stronger and we'd NEED them here. Don't blame them, blame the rigged system that attracts, and keeps them here!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

I think it goes

If we remove the incentives "AKA free handouts" then they would quit trying to get here.

Your statement suggests that eliminating incentive would be incentive for them to come. That may be a play on words on your part but it is inaccurate non the less.

I'm saying that if we eliminate the welfare state there would be

no free goodies for them to grab, that everyone else pays for, and we're infinitely poorer for it.

The end result of eliminating ALL (ok I'll settle for 90% less) welfare is our economy would be a whole lot better and we'd be begging immigrants to come here, like we used to, because there wouldn't be enough of us here to do all the new work!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

We also need to look at the

We also need to look at the underlying causes behind the people coming here. What socioeconomic or political factors are causing such hardship that these people are leaving their families in Mexico to work here? I suspect that agreements like NAFTA are a big factor.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Add to the fact our propped up

welfare state and US$ Currency

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

I agree with you accept i put

I agree with you accept i put the blame where it belongs...on the system AND the ones that break the law and breed like cockroaches to get more money and perks. Blame them ALL....

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

I blame the system not the people

A few friends have been illegals. I see the invasion every day. I'm within 100 miles of the border, I see the Constitution Free Zone from my kitchen window. It wouldn't be like this if the Amerikan people kicked out the shittty system, not kick out free moving people, many which are more productive than the average lazy dumbed down USSA'r.

When I have a project that requires tools, equipment, a work ethic, some common sense and an all around good attitude, usually it's Pedro the 40 year old soccer player, over Pete the 25 year old former H.S. football star. Not always but enough to surprise you when it's the other way around

(I didn't downvote you btw)

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Question: is it fair / equitable for one group of immigrants

(from one country / region) to receive such overwhelming favoritism as to be rewarded for breaking the law [simply because proximity is in their favor], while others from other parts of the world "play by the rules" (Whether or not those rules are right / sensible is not the issue.), take classes, pay taxes (yes, which suck for all of us), and generally jump through the hoops required of legally-attained citizenship?

(It would seem--although I have no evidence to support this--that those who learn US history, etc. via the legal citizenship path may appreciate it more / be more educated and thus = better, more responsible citizens / voters, who would support Constitutional Liberty in a more effective way / be more civics / community-minded, instead of isolating themselves from meaningful participation / contribution. [I don't assume, naturally, that these are absolutes, but I must disclose that I carry baggage here, per the globalist anti-US agenda involving screwing with borders, wanton unchecked immigration, inciting cultural / ethnic conflict, etc. And I believe it is dishonorable and disgusting when people who have arrived illegally (again, in obvious contrast to legal immigrants) take to the streets, stomp their feet with anger, and *demand* free citizenship; it is the ultimate entitlement mentality, is it not?])

Someone make a case.

And, of course, immigration policy has never been fair, so I think most of us here do not need to be distracted from this question by schooling on the issue (ie: Chinese immigration policy in the 19th - early 20th century, etc.). Also, I was once called a CLICC ("crazy liberal in conservative clothing / costume" [LOL! Can't recall which.]) for having said that the US has terrible karma per our genocide of indigenous folks and that we have never atoned for those very real sins, and so on. Xenophobia doesn't come into it for me; rather, it is a matter of principle.

What would the Founders do?