The pioneers coming in the Mayflower were legal or illegal aliens?
Answer:
I think we need to get off what has happened in the past. It cannot be changed. This is 2007 and we have a major problem with illegal immigration in the United States.
they were explorers, coming from civilization to a new savage world.
They were legal because there was no law on the books against them coming to America.
Uhhm they were renegade invaders more or less. Come to think of it america was created out of an invasion...
How would they be illegals, if border laws didn't exist, and illegal immigration didn't exist yet. that is just a poor comparison that pro amnesty people thought of because they don't know the history of our country.
There was no law about immigration, so you can't call it illegal. I don't know if you can call it legal, either. It was what it was. And the Apache resided nowhere near where the Mayflower landed, by the way.
they had aegis from their country, unlike the mexican invasion we are suffering through now.
not only were they aliens they were escaped convicts
They were invaders.
Legal,immigration laws had not yet come into play.
native americans didn't have immigration laws, or borders for that matter. They also didn't have an economic system to worry about.
I'm not totally against immigration, by the way.
how could thay b illegal if there was no goverment
You are just jealous and bitter because they didn't land in your country of birth
As Al Gore would say, there was no controlling legal authority to tell them they couldn't come. By contrast, there was one telling them they could go (the English crown).
The Apaches were in the west. The Spanish, not the English or the French, were their problem. For the time being. The English were dealing with tribes like the Mohawks, the Iriquois, the Pequots, and other tribes native to the lands now labeled New England and New York.
I say they were explorer's that discover The Americas not just the US, got it?
Not need at the times any of those things= laws...
Oh please, there was no official govt back then, we make the rules remember?!
But here's a better question, why didn't those pesky pioneers just stay home and "fix their own country"?
I don't think either.There were no laws back 500 years ago..OK genius.
Not applicable to todays issue. Todays immigration issues are based upon law, policy and prceedure, none of which were in place back then.
The Pilgrims who came on the Mayflower cannot be considered in the same context as illegal aliens because although the land was populated by indigenous people they lived without borders or established territory. The concept of a "nation" was foreign to them. By comparison, the people today who enter this country illegally do so in full knowledge that they are violating the established territory of a sovereign nation, therefore subject to prosecution under the law.
This wasn't a country at that time. There were no laws to break. Geeze, give me a break!
This is a difference time. This is a country and there are laws to break. ALL ILLEGALS ARE CRIMINALS FOR BREAKING OUR LAWS!!!
If you are discussing immigration with a friend, you are likely to hear him reflexively blurt out the gem: "this is a nation of immigrants." When he does, simply point out to him that eighty-five percent of the residents of the United States were born here.
How could that preponderance of home-grown Americans justify us being called a "nation of immigrants"?
Certainly we are descendants of immigrants (as is everyone in the world), but that is not the same thing as being an immigrant.
Anyway, such a statement is no justification for continued mass immigration. The inference that "We are a nation of immigrants and, therefore, we must not limit immigration" is a classic example of circular argument.
What is says is this: Because we are a nation of immigrants, we have to allow for massive immigration which, in turn, makes us a nation of immigrants. Hence its circularity.
Circular arguments are invalid in the logical sense by virtue of how they are structured and not what do they mean. They lead to faulty (and, therefore, useless) reasoning in which the thesis (the very thing which is to be proved) is used as a premise in its proof.
And circular arguments certainly do not form a good basis on which to formulate sound public policy.
Legal
They were not legal because there were no laws. Also, the Indians did not have to worry about the Pilgrims bringing in drugs, deseases and a lower standard of living.
You need to learn more about American Indians. The Apaches were nowhere near the east coast at the time. Tribal boundaries were not always well-defined and changed as tribes fought or otherwise interacted with each other. They did not have the concept of land ownership; land belonged to God, Indians only used it, and generally claimed no "governmental rights" as countries do today.
Green cards would not have been required. Too bad certificates of health were not required either.
im gonna say neither. but i do know they were crazy jesus psychos. no offense to any jesus psychos here...
legal because this was an open nation hell not even a quarter of the Indian tribes had a concept of government. everyone who come to the country before the passing of the stamp act in 1776, when we declared war on England, consider themselves British. and anyone who didn't come through Eilis island after that to me are consider ILLEGALS. now a days all you have to do is get excepted by a major us university and never leave or walk the dessert and jump the fence. now if those ways aren't back dooring America then i don't know what is. WAKE-UP AMERICA!!
Interesting to note you called them pioneers and not aliens or immigrants. They didn't stay and fix their country's problems because they were out exploring for new colonies for their countries. Had the Native Americans been one true nation they might have won the battle of the land.
Also interesting to note that the 1st treaty was between the colony at Plymouth and a tribe for mutual protection against other tribes.
Apache citizenship? Unlikely, since they landed in the territory of the Iroquois Confederation. The British Colonies and the Iroquois Confederation eventually did negotiate treaties that regulated such things as trade and settlements, and were Allies in wars against the French and Huron.
In the US, a great deal of land is privately owned, so the land belongs to the person who owns it. In a broader sense, the nation belongs to it's citizens. You're a citizen if you're born here, or are naturalized - it makes no difference who your ancestors were, or when they first set foot on the continent.
The medicine information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness.