Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightdemon  In all fairness Bodhi, Korimyr actually did keep it in context.
The influx of Texan immigrants came from Southern US. If it had not been for these immigrants, Texas wouldn't have had the balls to claim independance. It was the immigrants that crossed borders, some without fulfilling legal requirements in becoming actual Mexican citizens (such as becoming catholic, freeing thier slaves, and learning how to speak spanish, etc), and they demanded that the Mexican govt to stop "oppressing it's citizens."
Those who are crossing our borders today, aren't they doing the same thing? Claiming that they are being "oppressed?" They can't get a driver's license, they're not allowed to work in certain places, etc. They are not considered "citizens?" Yet American's considered themselves "citizens" when they immigrated to Texas, didn't they?
If Texas' independance was justified on these grounds, then should Texas and other border states that feel they are "oppressed" then are they justified in leaving the US? Should the immigrants have a say on the states independance? |
"Complaining" about being oppressed and actually "
Being" oppressed are drasitically different.
IMO the Texans were not being oppressed in the slightest just as the Illegals in CA and such are not either.
Seeking a better life and not finding it is very different from what the Texans and what the Illegal Mexican Immigrants are finding. Practically all, in both cases, found likfe better for various reasons and both complain about not having it even better than they do... much like the American Revloutionaries are their ire over imagined or made up ideas about "No Taxation wtihout Representation"
As to the rest, it is subtle differences such as this that I will not engage in with KTR.
He likes his assumptions and he can have them.
