Ilegal Indians and the North American immigration dilemma.

Most of my posts on this blog are not that long-winded, but this one is, and it includes a number of links to review. So, read it at your leasure.

To begin with, current U.S. Immigration policy is based on the attitudes of Demopublicans (Democrats and Republicans). Non-Indigenous American Demopublicans, particularly those of European ancestry, by-and-large hold the same attitudes about their place in America as Afrikanners did up until the end of South Africa's apartheid era, which is the illusion that they are just as "native" to America as Indigenous Americans are by viture of being born in America, or as even as indigenous to America as the white race of Germany is to Germany. Nevermind that the the United States and most other American nations of conquest were created out of brute force, genocide, and also to a great degree, slave labor. Therefore, from an Indigenous American traditionalist prospective, the nations of the Americas that were created out of European conquest are rogue nations, although their centuries of survival, industrialization , and among many of them mightiness, have gained them legitimacy globally.

Euro-American-centric Demopublicans hold a pervailing attitude that Americans of genetically mixed European ancestry make up a superior culture to pedigree European cultures, and that their nation, the United States of America, is the greatest nation on earth, even though the majority of them are not world-traveled enough to prove it to themselves. One cannot deny that some good things have evolved out of mainline American Yankee ingenuity such as advancements in medicine, science and technology that have bettered the human condition. And in spite of some of the rubbish it puts out, overall the American motion picture industry gets an "A" for its creativity. However, the majority of Americans take it for granted as a result of institutionalized Demopublican propaganda in the public school system and elsewhere, that the U.S. is the most free and prosperous country on the globe, when in fact there are some countries with greater individual and/or economic liberties. (Although the result of higher taxes and a significantly smaller population than that of the U.S., Canada currently is rated as having the highest standard of living in the world).

The majority of Americans ignore the fact that migration around the Americas on the part of Indigenous Americans has existed for thousands of years. Some indigenous tribes and nations have been more nomadic than others, yet practically all Indigenous Americans, whether frequently nomadic, seasonally migratory, or seldom migratory, have always looked upon migration for better living conditions as a natural right--just as natural as migration is on the part of many species of birds and animals. Most non-Indigenous Americans also buy into the Bering Strait myth, which asserts that all Indigenous American tribes originated in Asia and migrated to the originally void-of-humans Americas during an ice age. Therefore, American Indians are thus First Americans as opposed to Indigenous Americans,being that our ancient ancestors did not originate in the Americas. Yours truely takes this assumption to task in the December 2005 archives of this blog: (The Incredible Shrinking Bering Strait Myth).

Being that they consider the United States and its borders that define it georgraphically as legitimate, the majority of Americans thus classify Indigenous American-blooded people from Latin America who enter U.S. territory via non-official ports of entry to live and work, as being "illegal invaders" or "illegal aliens," including those who enter the country documented with U.S. visas, but who overstay them after their expiration date.

Nevermind that Sitting Bull, Geronimo, and other great Indigenous American "warriors" looked upon whites as foreign invaders of ancient, traditional Indian territories and themselves as foreign invasion resistance fighters. Granted that there were engaged conflicts between some Indian nations over the centuries, and that some of those conflicts were over domain of territory. However, Indigenous Americans never went as far as invading Europe. Prior to the European invasion of America, major territorial invasions only took place on the Eurasian and north African continents, primarily on the part of Aryans (Persians who invaded Hindustan), Greeks, Romans, Turks, and Mongols (Ghangis Khan). Even the Aztec empire was relatively small compared to those that ecompassed Europe, north Africa, and Asia.

The following link goes to a webpage that features a conservative, right-wing, white American woman who reflects the attitudes of many mainstream Americans towards undocumented migrants from Mexico and other parts of Latin America. She also quotes a contemporary Comanche Indian with similar views based on his tribe's traditional, historical attitude towards other Indigenous American nations and foreigners:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7272

I give the Comanche credit for telling it like it was. In the old days, the Comanches, including the Crow, Pawnee, Chiricahua Apaches, and the ancient Aztecs were nasty indios towards their indigenous neighbors.

Now here is link to a related commentary that makes more sense:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2006/03/statist-weasel-of-week.html

The failure to recognize traditional Mesoamerican migration as a natural right is not just due to ignorance and arrogance on the part of Demopublican society; it is also the result of self-racism towards Indianess on the part of Spaniardized Indians more commonly known for their racial mixture as mestizos, and pan-ethnically as hispanics and Latinos. Rather than go into detail about the roots of this self-racism myself, I have provided the following link to another site (Mexika Eagle Society) that does an excellent job of explaining the history of, Mestizaje and Self-Hate:

http://bit.ly/cWfddP

articleID=7272

The bottom line is, just like the majority of "Native Americans" today, the majority of people of Latin American ancestry are mestizo by blood. People of Mexican and Central American origin by-and-large have more Indigenous American genes than they do European. However, the difference between they and those who identify as "American Indian," "Native American, " or in Spanish-speaking Latin American countries as "indígena," is that they prefer to only identify themselves by their national origin or "Latino" instead of a more indigenous identity for reasons explained in the link above. If the vast majority of people of Mexican and Central American mestizo origin would identify themselves as indigenous and also avoid being neo-Aztec wannabes like a lot of Chicanos do, those who migrate from Latin America to the U.S. would be looked more upon as Mesoamerican migrants instead of foreign immigrants.

As indicated previously, migration from Mexico and Central America to the U.S. today is rooted in ancient Mesoamerican migratory practices for the purpose of better survival. Call it "economics" these days if you want, but it's still about better survival.

Focusing on Mexico, that need for better survival is also the fault of the Mexican government and the Mexican voters who keep electing inefficiency and corruption to public office. Vicente Fox was not able to bring about enough positive radical changes because he was not agressive enough in his approach, and also due to the two major opposition parties voting down the majority of his proposed reforms all for the sake of partisan politics, even though Fox initially formed a largely tri-partisan cabinet after he became elected Presidente de la República.

Mexico could drastically reduce poverty in the nation and greatly improve the economy by offering private industry a low flat income tax rate in exchange for agreeing to pay their employees a minimum of 30 pesos (almost 3 U.S. dollars) per hour, which the majority of the them could afford to do and still make a decent profit, but which the vast majority choose not to do. A low flat tax would also encourage more businesses to report their income to Hacienda (the federal internal revenue collection agency), which many currently do not due to the current, more complex and costly tax system.

Some white Americans in particular are pro tough-on-illegal immigration and call for the militarzation of the southern border to help fight "the war on terror" because they think it's a good smoke screen for their fear of brown-skinned Indian-blooded people taking back America. (See related commentary:

http://indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412741

They are also actually afraid of the possibility of Al-Queda terrorists slipping across the border from Mexico into the U.S., even though Mexico has military checkpoints on all of its thoroughfares leading north about every one-hundred kilometers, and it is the meddlesome, globalist foreign policies of the Demopublican-elected government that agitates aggression from abroad in the first place.

Other Americans take the tough on illegal immigration stance because they believe that the undocumented suppress wages in too many American industries with their cheap labor, and take more from the economy in public services than they contribute to it. I have researched these issues and have listened to the debates myself for many years, and have come to the following conclusions:

- Approximately 80% per cent of all undocumented migrants/immigrants in the U.S. are from Mexico. This link provides accurate statistics as to how much thley contribute to the U.S. economy and how much they take from it in the way of public services:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

- Undocs suppress wages in certain U.S. industries due to the low wages they are willing to work for, but the majority of them work in industries and perform low-skilled labor that most U.S.-born citizens do not want to engage in for comparable worth.

- Mexican residents of the northern Mexican border regions who are able to cross into the U.S. legally spend approximately 3 billion dollars a year in most U.S. counties that border Mexico.

- Indigenous-centric people from Mexico who migrate to the U.S. undocumented consider their migration to be no more than that of an act of civil disobediance against U.S. immigration law because they believe that they are just carrying on the natural, historical right of their ancestors in the way of Mesoamerican migration. See the following related links:

http://indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1090337206

http://indiancountry.com/content.cfm?feature=yes&id=1096412864

- Mestizo-society-centric Mexicans who migrate to the U.S. undocumented also consider their migration to be no more than an act of civil disobediance against U.S. immigration law because upper Mesoamerica, which consists of the southrwestern United States, once belonged to Mexico that was lost to what most Mexicans consider an unjust war with their country initiated by the United States, and which ended in surrender in 1848.

Mexicans view the main enforcer of undocumented land migration from Mexico, the U.S. Border Patrol, to be nothing more than a contemporary version of the U.S. Cavalry whose purpose was to enforce Indian containment pograms, making Mexico, due to current U.S. immigration policy, a giant south-of-the-artificial border Indian reservation. The Mexican government favors a more liberal immigration policy on the part of the U.S. towards Mexican citizens, while at the same time it systematically deports Mayans from Central America, even though the Mayan nation includes southeastern Mexico. A case of hypocrisy and wanting your cake and eating it too.

- Undocumented migration to the U.S. from Mexico will always continue without interruption as long as Mexico continues to not develop a first world economy; as long as the U.S. maintains it's current immigration policy towards Mexican nationals, and as long as it does not increase its enforcement policies, such as heavily militarizing all 2000 miles of southern border, and cracking down on all industries that tend to hire the undocumented that would include much stiffer penalties for employers who do so.

Ideally, it would have made sense for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to include an immigration clause, which would have allowed U.S., Mexican, and Canadian citizens to live and work in each other's countries with minimal requirements as is the policy with the European Union and the five-nation South American free trade alliance. This would have forced Mexico to increase wages to a decent standard of living in order to prevent a large exodous and brain drain of both skilled profesionals and low-skilled workers. But until Mexico gets its economic house in order and the Demopublicans decide to quit playing Cowboys and Indians with Mexico immigration-wise, there will continue be an illegal Indian dilemma indefinately; that is unless the majority of American voters some day by miracle get fed up with Demopublican politics-as-usual, and replace Republicans and Democrats with Libertarians and Greens, (the third and fourth largest parties in the U.S.), both of whom favor a liberal immigration policy with Mexico.

Libertarian: http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml
Green: http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#1002510

In the meantime, grant the undocs that are already in the country amnesty, and create a guest worker program for those who are still in Mexico and want to perform guest worker program-designated jobs, which would consist of those that most U.S.-born citizens do not want to engage in for comparable worth. That would at least decrease the ongoing dilemma of contemporary U.S. immigration law, which treads upon the ancient natural law of indigenous Mesoamerican migration.

This all boils down to a case of racially foreign and colonized inhabitants of the Americas suppressing the ancient migratory practices of the racially indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. Here's a final satirical look at the situation:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/05/fiorephobia.DTL

Abortion

Most Indigenous American cultures, including my own, believe that each human being possesses an inorganic soul, and that the soul does not incarnate into the body until birth during the first breath of life outside of the womb. Therefore, abortion has never been taboo in most Indigenous American societies.

Back in the old days, and among "primitive" societies today, Indigenous American women exercised abortion as a means of birth control during the first trimester with the use of a special blade made of stone or bone that was inserted into the uterus. Medicinal plants referred to in Mesoamerica as "purgas" were used to help induce an abortion as well.

Some non-Indigneous American religionists believe that the soul incarnates into an embryo upon conception, or at some point when it develops into a fetus prior to birth. Most people who are opposed to abortion and who do not want it legal base their argument against abortion on that belief.

There are other people who are ethically opposed to abortion on the grounds that it potentially robs humanity of a human being who might end up contributing to the betterment of humankind significantly in some way, such as another Eienstein or someone who develops a cure for a disease. However, that category of anti-abortion proponent tends not to be opposed to the legalization of abortion, though, realizing that on the other hand, an abortion might be sparing the world from a potential evil tyrant like Hilter or Pol Pot, etc.. They also tend to respect from a legal standpoint a woman's right to choose whether she wants to go full term with a pregnancy or not.

From a scientific standpoint, a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb prior to the third trimester without artificial life support, and fetal brain activity is not fully active until about the seventh month of development. Some "pro-choicers" thus advocate that abortion ought to be legal up through at least the end of the second trimester.

Some people do not believe in a soul, and as just pointed out, there are varying beliefs by others about at what point it incarnates into the body, which cannot be proven scientifically. Therefore, abortion should be a matter of individual conscious on the part of the embryonic/fetal host, and not on the part of government legislators or the host's parents, even if she is an adolescent minor.

As for birth control and family planning, Indigenous Ameicans by-and-large never over-populated because they would abstain from sexual relations with the opposite sex during certain seasons. Europeans and some other cultures even used to use dried sheep intestines as condoms. Most Indigenous Americans today continue to suppport methods of family planning, and the utilization of various artifical means to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Alcohol, Drugs, and Addictions

Most people who do hard core illicit drugs like heroin and cocaine become addicted to them and end up needing professional help if they want to overcome the addiction. Other illicit drugs like crystal meth, methamphetamines, and crack cocaine are highly addictive also, but easier to overcome addiction-wise. Out of all the most popular illicit drugs in use today, crystal meth is the worst because it does the most damage to the body and especially the brain with all those harsh, nasty, synthetic chemicals it has in it. It's use is the most widely spread because it is the most affordable.

Most people who consume alcohol and who smoke marijuana do so in moderation and go through life without becoming physically and psychologically dependent on those substances. However, alcohol abuse has been a particular problem among Indigenous Americans, particularly those from tribes north and east of upper Mesoamerica who were never exposed to alcoholic beverages prior to the European invasion in that part of North America. That is why most Indian reservations, particularly those without casino bars, to this day ban the sale of alcohol. On the other hand, indigenous peoples of the southwestern United States, Mexico, and further south had been accustomed to fermented, intoxicating beverages derived from the cactus family of plants for centuries prior.

Alcohol and drugs are not the only addictions people can become afflicted with. There are psychological addictions to such things as over-eating, gambling, excessive spending, excessive sex, fetishes, other recreational activities, and even love addictions towards certain types of people who fulfill an emotional dependency. A thing, person, or activity becomes an unhealthy addiction when it becomes an uncontrollable, consistent obsession that interferes with one's physical health, daily responsibilities, and overall well-being.

Some people remain in denial of their addictions. Others eventually seek help for them due to either pressure from friends and loved ones, hitting rock bottom, or best of all, by recognizing such a problem in its early stage before it's too late.

Traditional Indigenous American treatments for additions and substance abuse vary just as modern, conventional "Western" treatments do. Indigenous American medicine people have always recognized that some people have a biological disposition for certain addictions apart from them just being a psychological weakness. Certain medicinal herbs are thus prescribed to help control craviings. A medicine shaman can also serve as a counselor and talk therapist, and apply ritualistic, metaphysical, and holistic/integrative techniques in an attempt to cure addictions and other afflictions.

Marijuana and psychotropic plants should only be consumed for medicinal and spiritual purposes, and only in moderation with the guidance of a conventional or preferably naturopathic physician. The latter can include an indigenous medicine person. "Medicinal purposes" can include the relief of temporary stress and anxiety.

For persons who do not have any medical conditions that prohbit the consumption of alcohol and who are not recovering alcoholics, minimal consumption of an alcoholic beverage on a daily basis can be healthy for relieving stress whenever it is present, and also for the control of cholestrol.

There is really no need in this day and age to discuss in detail here the harmful effects of regular, daily tobacco use. Indigenous Americans have used raw tobacco for ages for ritualistic purposes, but not as a regular nicotine habit before cigarettes in particular came into widespread use.

Marijuana and psychotropic plants should not be illegal under any circumstances because their natural reason d'etre is medicinal, and/or for the awakening and enhancement of otherwise dormant areas of the brain that are used to direclty perceive the spiritual in altered states of consciousness.

Even illicit drugs ought to be legal because all their prohibition does is create and maintain high-priced black markets that commit acts of violence; breed corruption among public officials, and clogs up the law enforcement, judicial, and penal systems with offenders.

The "War on Drugs" is not winable in most countries because there is too much of a public demand for the product, and most political parties that legislate most governments and their laws are unwilling to sentence illicit drug producers and suppliers to death or life imprisonment for their trade, or sentence illicit drug consumers to years in prison for simple use and possesion.

Mandatory prescriptions of medications for adults of sound mind should also be abolished.

Most governments do not favor all-out drug decriminalization or the abolition of mandatory prescriptions because they are controlled by political parties with politicians and bureaucrats that:

a) Are morally and philosophically opposed to substances that can intoxicate, especially those that can potentially harm or be addictive.

b) Believe that government has a moral obligation to be paternalistic towards its citizenry in the way of detering people from potentially abusing themselves with substances, even if most of them are responsible adults of sound mind.

c) Cater to special interests that benefit and profit from mandatory prescriptions and drug prohibiton--everyone from black market drug cartels, medication-prescribers, and those in law enforcement who make their living off of enforcing illicit drug and prescription medication laws.

Just another example of how most of the world's major political parties are intrusive, hypocritical, and corrupt.

Capital Punishment

Indigenous American societies used to exercise the death penalty and still do in the remote Amazon. Apart from Aztec and Mayan human sacrifice to deities, putting people to death as punishment was primarily limited to rival warriors taken captive in battle, and for the unwarranted murder of a tribal member by another. Sometimes shamans believed to have cast evil spells were killed by those affected by them.

In this day and age in civilized societies, people convicted of first and second degree homicide ought to have the option or being put to death or spending the rest of their life in prison without the possibility of parole. The reason for this is twofold:

1) Too many people have been convicted of murder based solely on circumstantial evidence just beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to an absolute doubt. Subsequent DNA evidence or reliable sources coming forth that prove otherwise have resulted in innocent people being released from death row and prison.

2) From a spiritual Indigenous American traditionalist perspective, spending the rest of your life imprisoned is a greater punishment than death, being that most traditional Indigenous American cultures do not believe in Hell or a realm of eternal damnation and punishment for the wicked and unrepentant "sinners" like some biblical Old Testament, Paulist, and Calvinist-oriented Christian sects do, nor do we believe in just one "heaven."

Although most Indigenous Americans believe that each individual possesses an eternal soul with a conscious and awareness that continues after physical death, which realm of existence that soul goes to and for how long depends on the overall life conduct of the individual. Evil souls can spend a long time remaining on the earth plain as a ghost to learn lessons, and then go on to a purgatory-type of realm for further lessons, but not for an eternity.

Indigenous American traditionalists do not fear death or consider it a punishment. For us, it is just a change of bodies and worlds. Therefore, punishment in the form of decades of incarceration is the less desirable of the two.

Most contemporary Indigenous American traditionalists hold the view that wherever capital punishment continues to exist, it should only be for murder beyond an absolute doubt; carried out swiftly and painlessly, and not made into a circus-like audience spectacle or ritual.

Cloning and Stem Cell Research

"All birds, even those of the same species, are not alike, and it is the same with animals and with human beings. The reason Wakantanka does not make two birds, or animals, or human beings exactly alike is because each is placed here by Wakantanka to be an independent individuality and to rely upon itself." -- Shooter, late 19th century Teton Lakota Sioux.

When Shooter gave that teaching, he was talking about identical personalities--not people who appear to be identical physically, being that identical twins are born into the Indigenous American race as they are all others, and most other creatures belonging to a species or breed of animal, bird, fish, etc. appear identical to the human eye. However, even they have their own individual personalities, including those that have been cloned artifically in recent years. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that a cloned human being would have any more of an identical personality to his or her genetic host than natural clones known as identical twins do.

The ethical issue in relation to human cloning at this stage of the science of artifical cloning is that it should not be performed until geneticists can guarantee that a cloned human being will be born birth defect-free. Many animals that have been cloned so far are born with various types of birth defects and have endured a short-lived life span for their species. The first successful animal cloning to be widely publicized, Dolly the Sheep of Scotland, only lived four years.

The purpose of stem cell research is to attempt to improve the human condition medically. Human stem cells are generally removed from human fetuses. Those who oppose this type of research do so on the grounds that a human fetus must be destroyed in order to retrieve the stem cells. They are the same people who oppose abortion, which is discussed separately in this blog. However, stem cells are generally taken from a fetus that has been removed from the womb for other reasons anyway, so why let them go completely to waste if the female host of the fetus gives her consent?

Shamans manipulate the elements and environment all of the time. In most cases, there is nothing wrong with scientists doing so in the laboratory as well as long as it is done responsibly.

Euthanasia

In the United States in the year 1998, Thomas Youk, who was of sound mind but suffering from terminal Lou Gherig's Disease, asked Dr. Jack Kavorkian, a pathologist famous for medical assisted suicide, and nicknamed "Dr. Death," to end his suffering by medical euthanasia. Mr. Youk's immediate family was supportive of his decision. Nevertheless, Dr. Kavorkian ended up being tried and convicted of second-degree murder in Michigan in 1999. Mr. Youk's euthanasia in 1998 was depicted in an episode of a broadcast of the ever popular CBS news magazine program "60 Minutes" the Sunday after the euthanasia had taken place. The photo depicted here of Mr. Youk seated in his home with Dr. Kavorkian standing by his side during his final moments is a scene from that broadcast.

Forms of euthanasia have been the norm in many traditional Indigenous American societies. Elderly, invalid Inuits ("Eskimos") as an example and back in the old days, used to voluntarily die of exposure to the freezing cold in a matter of minutes by being transported to a sacred place and removing their garments. Similar types of elder euthanasia took place among other indigenous societies throughout the Americas in a sacred cave or outdoor location. Traditional Indigneous American elders held the view that it was unfair of them to be a burden to their families and communities when the time came where they could no longer contribute to the community and tend to their basic needs by themselves. Younger people who ended up becoming severly disabled due to injury or disease also held the same view about themselves, especially when they suffered from incurable, ongoing pain.

In many traditional Indigenous American societies, newborns born with severe, dehabilitating birth defects were often euthanized by being placed in a natural body of water, usually a stream or river, to drown. It was not considered humane to allow such a person to spend a life in such a state of being.*

Persons born with severe mental disabilities, or those who developed mental disabilities due to illness or injury, were generally not euthanized if they were at least marginally functional physically, and appeared to adequately perceive and recognize certain people and their overall environment.

In this day and age of modern medicine and humane care facilities for the elderly and severely disabled, such mercy killings are no longer necessary in non-primitive societies. Nevertheless, contemporary Indigenous American traditionalists hold the view that assisted suicide ought to be a matter of legal individual choice on the part of those of sound mind to make that choice for themselves, including immediate family members having to deal with a loved in a permanent mental vegetative state.

Indigenous American traditionalists view death as nothing more than a change of worlds not to be feared, and consider most categories of mercy killing to be moral and humane as long as the act is swift and painless.

Infanticide in North Korea