From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[I acknowledge Conservapedia's right to edit content but ask not to be quoted if the content that I post is censored.] I found this page by clicking on the "immigration" link in the "Conservatism" article, which supports, among other things, enforcement of current immigration laws. Decades ago, an illegal immigrant could become a legal one by marrying a legal US citizen. Government enforcement of current immigration laws, which provide no such protection, would force immigrants who are married to legal citizens to leave the United States (often to return to one with worse living conditions) and thus encourage the breakup of families (I was previously under the impression that Conservapedia took a pro-family stance.). Also, the enforcement of current immigration laws would require vast amounts of taxpayer money (I was also, previously, under the impression that Conservapedia was against both rash government spending and higher taxes.). --X. Dulks


Something has tickled my tiny mind for years. A conundrum, if you will. It goes like this: 18th century arrivals from Britain were not "immigrants" any more than was someone relocating from state to state. It says so in this article. Therefore, how can those who rebelled against Britain, their own country that they had not "emigrated" from, that they are considered a part of in this article, be called "patriots"? Surely a person who rebels against his "King and Country", especially one who had taken an oath of allegiance when commissioned as Washington did cannot be considered to be patriotic.
I have generally been favourable in my attitude towards the rebellious colonials. The States were being treated badly. Anyone who has browsed my hundreds of pages of history articles here would know me to be pretty-well straight up the middle. My beef isn't with the colonials, it is with the misuse of a word.
AlanE (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2016 (EDT)


The OED has for immigrant: "entrance into a country for the purpose of settling there". This suggestions that all but indigenous peoples are immigrants, including the earliest colonists, etc.


1990'sguy the reverts that you make contradict much of what is found later in the article. I have now added something to the lead re illegal immigration. Don't falsify facts for the sake of propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timber (talk) I saw no place or instructions!
You were blocked for editing with a liberal POV, and you are on the verge of another block. Most immigration today is for economic reasons, not educational or religious freedom -- the Pilgrims migrated at a time when any type of immigration was rare and usually was from a country to a colony controlled by that country. CP will not accept the propaganda or the falsification of facts, and that's why you're being reverted. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
And where am I adding "personal opinion"? Specific examples? --1990'sguy (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
My objection is that your version of the lead does not summarize what is said below in the article. The following is a distortion of what the article actually says (it is your personal opinion): "from abandonment of their family there to an attempt to benefit from entitlements or opportunities in a new country," though the real problem is what you omit. Furthermore you ignore the usual definition of immigration. There are some parts of the article that also ignore this definition, and the fact that Columbus discovered America, and that this led to its subsequent colonization by people (foreigners) from Europe. This is about a poorly written lead, not politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timber (talk) There is no place to sign I presumed that your system was automatic!
Abandonment isn't mentioned elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timber (talk) see above
I made more changes -- your edit downplayed economic migration despite it being the most prominent form of migration today. Also, these aren't my personal opinions, and I didn't even write the original paragraph. One more revert from you -- and please keep in mind that you're a new editor, blocked once already, with an established liberal POV based on edits -- and you will receive a block. If you want to continue editing, you need to go to the talk page and refrain from undermining CP's established point of view. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

I did emphasize economic factors and reduced the emphasis on atonement which isn't mentioned in the article. Furthermore I have used the Talk page and tried to produce compromise edits.

The following statement is eccentric at the least: "They moved inside the Empire and did not leave their native country for a foreign land, so they are not considered 'immigrants' any more than a person who moves from Florida to Alaska today". Again it sounds like one person's personal opinion, so that it's reasonable to ask for a source from a reputable historian. North America, was colonized by foreign immigrants. It is a fact, not false news or a liberal lie. CP's point of view is, I presume, that illegal immigration should end, but it surely also believes that the past history of immigration has to be based on facts not personal opinion–and that the dictionary definition of immigration is important. Timber —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timber (talk)

First, to write your signature, you need to type this: ~~~~
The statement that you have a problem with is a matter of logic and definitions -- I don't think we need to cite a Ph.D. historian to cite that it's not immigration if we have a clear definition of immigration (which we do) and a situation where people remain inside territory controlled by the same empire. Using logic, there's nothing wrong with the sentence.
I am a man of my word, so I gave you a very short block (1-day blocks are rarely given on CP) since you continued reverting me. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
Thanks 1990'sguy for the brief block, though I don't understand why you did this because together we improved the lead, and it felt more like a heated debate than an edit-war? However, perhaps I was over-eager?
Re the early settlers not being immigrants. I don't think I was clear enough. The main problem is not the idea that the early colonists weren't immigrants but that the opening wording of this section seem, confusingly, to suggest that America isn't a country of immigrants. Presumably this isn't a view that Conservapedia can support.
The idea of distinguishing the earliest settlers from later immigrants is interesting (if illogical), but sounds like a personal opinion than something accepted by any historians–but I'm certainly not an expert in this field!
I suggest the following revision (but note the lack of sources here):
The fact that the United States of America is a country of immigrants, is often used as an argument in favor of illegal immigration by liberals.
Most of the immigrants to America in the British colonial era were English, Scots and Protestant Irish. A large number of German immigrants came to Pennsylvania and New York. To this day they are called "Pennsylvania Dutch" but they were Germans, and came for religious freedom and economic opportunity. Dutch did come and settle in New Amsterdam (now New York), which was part of the Dutch Empire. Black slaves were involuntary immigrants to all the colonies, especially the tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland, and the rice plantations of South Carolina. The American Revolution cut off movement from 1775 to 1783. When it resumed, about 80,000 American Loyalists left the U.S. to migrate to Canada, or return to Britain. Migration was light before 1815, because of wars in Europe. The import or export of slaves was made.
What do you think? Timber (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2019 (EDT)
I oppose any wording that says or suggests the U.S. is "a nation of immigrants" -- that term is a talking point, nothing more. CP does not deal in cliches, and such a statement isn't even true.
If this were the case, then every single human in every single country could be called an "immigrant" -- the French and Germans are not native to their homelands, they came in the 4th and 5th centuries. The Celts, who lived there first and mixed with the Romans, also migrated several centuries earlier. The "native" Americans (American Indians) also originally migrated. The vast majority of people in this country were born in and rooted in this country, making them natives.
This country is a nation of citizens -- ostensibly united by our shared love for the Constitution/Bill of Rights and the freedoms contained within them. We will not add any wording even alluding to the "nation of immigrants" talking point. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2019 (EDT)
The term immigrant is used in various other articles on Conservapedia. See, for example [[1]]; Immigrants; Chinese Exclusion Act; Immigration Act (1924). You appear to dismiss the views of many American–I'd think the majority, though I don't live there. Isn't what you say simply your personal point of view? Can you provide a reputable source for this eccentric position? You are right, however, that from the earliest times people have migrated. Timber (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2019 (EDT)
Your examples have nothing to do with the silly cliche, and we don't decide truth by a popularity vote. I recommend you read the websites of think thanks such as FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Policy, as well as any news source to the right of the WSJ. Also, the saying that the U.S. is a "nation of citizens" was not created by me. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Clearly you have your mind made up. It is interesting, if strange, that you seem to reject the idea of democracy: "we don't decide truth by a popularity vote". Actually I totally agree, though isn't that an elitist position? Anyhow I came to Conservapedia to become better educated about conservatism and to learn how to edit in this environment. Timber (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

I'm a strong supporter of republicanism and Natural Law (see John Locke, for example). Like the founding fathers,[2][3] I prefer that to democracy, which is 51% majority wins irrespective to natural law. However, this is tangential to this discussion.
Thank you for being willing to learn -- I did that for three years on Wikipedia before I started here (I'm still at WP, for the record). CP, as the name suggests, is a conservative encyclopedia, from a conservative point of view (definition of conservatism).
You need to understand that CP is a massive target of vandalism -- it happens multiple times a day, from all types of vandals, whether blatant or subtle. We're strongly on the lookout. If I seem aggressive, it's because I've dealt with thousands of editors already who try to make our articles read like The Guardian or at least a watered-down version of Wikipedia. Thus, it's essential that you be more cautious when editing. We don't differ from your political/cultural views (whatever they are) merely on superficial, meaningless matters (like defense spending levels) -- the trend today is that people on the Left, Right, and Center (the latter often agreeing with the Left) disagree even on basic foundational presuppositions. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for these comments. On further thought, I think that I now better understand your position. I was confused by the fact that this isn't sufficiently explicit in the original words. I therefore suggest that it be revised as below–though you may wish to add more detail from your comments above? I took a quick look at the sources that you mention, but didn't find anything supporting the idea that the earliest colonists were not immigrants. But you obviously are more familiar with them than me.
There is a longstanding belief that the United States of America is a country of immigrants, an idea that is often used as an argument in favor of illegal immigration by liberals. So much so that this has become a meaningless political slogan. In reality since early times all people have migrated, even the indigenous peoples of North America.
The truth is that most of the migration to America in the colonial era came from Britain, with English, Scots and (Protestant) Irish. These settlers founded America for the [British Empire]]; so they are not considered "immigrants" any more than a person who moves from Florida to Alaska today.
I appreciate the difficulties that Consevapedia have with vandalism, but I'm more concerned with clarity and editorial values than with ideology. Timber (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2019 (EDT)
I made changes, and I added sources as you requested. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2019 (EDT)
Good edits. Thanks. Timber (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2019 (EDT)