General Question

Johnny_B_Goode's avatar

Were early settlers ( Pilgrims ) illegal aliens ?

Asked by Johnny_B_Goode (233points) March 12th, 2009
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

AstroChuck's avatar

The concept of “undocumented immigrants” didn’t exist back then. No La Migra.
So, no.

Dr_C's avatar

even in the concept existed… they didn’t cross over a recognized sovereign nation’s border… so no.

SpatzieLover's avatar

Aliens? To the natives I’m sure they looked like aliens. White skin, too many ruffles, powdered white wigs, shoes, big buckles on high-heeled mens shoes…

Imagine what the natives must’ve thought!

alive's avatar

i’m gunna have to say yes. by our standards today, they totally were. They went to a country uninvited and then stayed without permission.

@Dr_C i beg to differ. just because Europe and the western world did not “recognize” indigenous land ownership does not mean it did not exist.

in fact for one to think that the pilgrims “didn’t cross over a recognized sovereign nation’s border” assumes that “white is right” so to speak. (just like Europeans going into Africa and saying that those people were less intelligent and couldn’t possibly govern themselves…)

Jamspoon's avatar

The lands was lawless in them times!

And apparently people spoke like they did in the Western United States during the 19th century…

Dr_C's avatar

@alive that was taken a bit out of context. The basis for the comment was political recognition of a sovereign state without reagards to ethnicity or race. And since Most Native American tribes at the time had vague borders for their land at best, it would be pretty difficult to determine exactly where if and when someone were to cross over them if only by a short distance. One tribe may consider a specific meadow or valley part of their land, which another tribe might also consider to be theirs… a lack of specific political division and properly drawn up borders denies us the ability to determine specifically when a breach of border was made. And since there was no real political exchange between Native American tribes and visiting foreigners at the time of the pilgrim’s arrival, there was no official recognition of borders or sovereignty. So in the strict sense of the word… Not illegal if you don’t cross a designated and recognized border against specific instructions to the contrary. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with a specific culture’s intelligence or ability to govern itself.

Dr_C's avatar

I apologize if that came off as strong worded.. i have a thing about people assuming to know my intention of inferring opinion based on a specific comment that may or may not be easily taken out of context. To assume that by stating that there was no recognized sovereignty i was in some way stating that Native americans had less rights or that “White is right” or anything remotely related to the subjet of subjugation of a culture due to a feeling of superiority is honestly insulting. I’m sure that’s not what was meant… however that’s the impression that was given.

alive's avatar

Indian Nations

* Abnaki
* Alabama
* Alaska Natives
* Aleuts
* Algonquin
* Anasazi
* Apache
* Arapaho
* Arawak
* Arikara
* Assiniboin
* Aztec
* Beothuk
* Blackfeet
* Cabazon
* Caddo
* Canadian Natives
* Catawba
* Cherokee
* Cheyenne
* Chickasaw
* Chinook
* Chippewa
* Choctaw
* Chumash
* Comanche
* Cree
* Creek
* Crow
* Delaware
* Erie
* Eskimo
* First nation Mi’kMaq
* Flathead
* Haida
* Hidatsa
* Hohokam
* Hopi
* Hupa
* Huron
* Illinois
* Incas
* Innu
* Inuit
* Iowa
* Iroquois
* Kaw
* Kickapoo
* Kiowa
* Klamath
* Kootenai
* Kwakiutl
* Mahican
* Makah
* Maliseet
* Mandan
* Mayan
* Mayan
* Melugeon
* Menominee
* Metis
* Miami
* Mission Indians
* Mississauga
* Modoc
* Mohave
* Mohawk
* Mohegan
* Montagnais
* Montana
* Natnicoke
* Narragansett
* Metis
* Navajo
* Nez Perc
* Nootka
* Ojibwa
* Olmec
* Omaha
* Oregon
* Osage
* Oto
* Ottawa
* Paiute
* Papago
* Passamaquoddy
* Pawnee
* Pennacook
* Penobscot
* Peoria
* Pequot
* Pima
* Ponca
* Potawatomi
* Powhaten Confederacy
* Pueblo
* Quapaw
* Sac & Fox
* Sauk
* Seminole
* Seneca
* Shawnee
* Shoshone
* Shuswap
* Sioux
* Southwest Tribes
* Tlingit
* Toltec
* Tonkawa
* Ute
* Wampanoag
* Washo
* Wichita
* Winnebago
* Wyandotte
* Yakima
* Yuchi
* Yurok
* Zapotec
* Zuni

Note the word “Nation.” My point is that Indigenous people did in fact have have complex political relations with each other, but that was totally ignored by white people coming here and thinking that they were “savages,” “they only have vague boarders.” Each tribe is considered a sovereign state by other tribes, but not by the colonizing Europeans. They did have boarders, but for people who had never been to the New World they had no clue those boarders existed. But they DID cross those boarders.

The same can be said about the Spanish/Portuguese. Mayans, Inca, and Aztecs had complex political systems, but as soon as Europeans got there, it was “chop-liver”

Dr_C's avatar

Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples from the regions of North America now encompassed by the continental United States, including parts of Alaska and the island state of Hawaii. They comprise a large number of distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as intact political communities. There has been a wide range of terms used to describe them and no consensus has been reached among indigenous members as to what they prefer to be called collectively. Native Americans have also been known as American Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, Aboriginal, Indians, Indigenous, Original Americans, First Americans, Red Indians, or Red Men.

European colonization of the Americas was a period of conflict between Old and New World cultures. Most of the written historical record about Native Americans began with European contact. Ideologies clashed, old world diseases decimated, religious institutions challenged, and technologies were exchanged in what would be one of the greatest meetings of cultures in the history of the world. Native Americans lived in hunter/farmer subsistence societies with comparatively fewer societal constraints and institutional structures—as well as less focus on the acquisition of material goods and market transactions—than the more unyielding, institutional, market-based societies of Western Europe.[citation needed] The differences between these two cultures were vast enough to make for great misunderstandings and create long-lasting cultural conflicts.

As the colonies revolted against the United Kingdom and established the United States of America, the ideology of Manifest destiny became integral to the American nationalist movement. This ideology accommodated the American policy of attempting to “civilize” native tribes with Western ideals, (as conceived by men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Henry Knox)[5][6][7][8][9]and assimilation, (whether voluntary as with the Choctaw,[10][11] or forced) became a consistent policy through American administrations. Major resistance to American expansion, or “Indian Wars”, were nearly a constant issue up until the 1890s.

Indian Nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil . . . The very term “nation,” so generally applied to them, means “a people distinct from others.”—John Marshall, 1832 Worcester v. Georgia.

Your terminology is sound… the problem is historical applicability… it came a few decades after.

alive's avatar

Sorry, I should have added i got my info from http://www.nativeamericans.com/

RE: The quote about “Indian Nations” (from the citation style I assume you copy/pasted from wikipedia) is written by a white dude in 1832. I trust the Natives more than John Marshall.

But yes, you are right that it is historically out of context. That doesn’t change the fact that indigenous people were here, and Europeans didn’t give a shit (except when they almost starved to death, and need help from the Natives).

**And might I add, they DID cross England’s boarder to leave did they not? Obviously
they DID in fact “cross over a recognized sovereign nation’s border.” They left one country for another (even if the new world wasn’t defined as a country yet.)

laureth's avatar

My impression was that, as English colonists, they didn’t necessarily cross the English border but kind of strrrrrrrretched it out and brought it with them. ;) By doing so, they overlapped the Native lands much as the Natives may have done to each other.

On the other hand, they did buy some of the land, which could imply that they were settling quasi-legally (because they both settled on a price and a border). It was when the European settlers started ignoring these borders and other treaties and pressing in anyway that I think it got seriously illegal.

galileogirl's avatar

No laws regarding immigration=no ILlegal immigrants.

You have to establish legality before there can be illegality.

Bagardbilla's avatar

History (as well as laws) are written by those who are powerful and won!
Therfore, be suspect of both.

alive's avatar

@Bagardbilla yes. exactly. thank you.

blackhorse's avatar

To me yes they were but the nations of the east didn’t know who or what the outcome of there trust would be.yes I don’t care they were immigrants to are land .but hey we are paying for are big mistake.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther