Were European settlers illegal immigrants ?

Conquest =/= immigration

Also, none of the countries settled by Europeans had immigration laws.

>they were unwanted. asked to leave.
Who asked us to leave?
The native Americans at least bought guns and shit off us to kill other redskins

Sorry your on the wrong board
>>/pol/

There was no law that would've said otherwise

Why do you ask such stupid questions?

They learned it all from the eternal Germanian when they destroyed Rome.

>Everything that isn't anti-white/european, anti-colonism, or marxist belongs on /pol/

Non-whites were to backward to have a legal sysfem, so nope

Where are we talking about Europeans settling? In many areas they settled, there were no natives or very few natives, so it was unclaimed clay. In other areas they did not immigrate, but conquer and annex, which makes it rightful clay.

You're trying to liken European colonial immigration to modern Middle Eastern migration into Europe, which is a poor comparison. A fairer comparison would be the Romans giving land to Germanic shits, who then chimped out and bit the hand that fed them later on. Really makes you think...

The ones in Texas probably were, if you mean that. But if you mean those who settled in the untamed wilderness in the 1600s then no, those were not illegals.

I don't get this "they probably didn't have immigration laws" when we know for a fact native Americans regularly had territorial disputes.

They very clearly had a concept of territory, boundaries, and when it was appropriate to cross them. In some cases the Europeans' presence was accepted, but in many cases it was resisted.

So the question more falls down to whether they had a codified immigration law, they probably didn't. If that's where you draw the line on if it's illegal, then it wasn't.
They almost certainly would have had customs about what their territory was and who could do what within it. Even the Romans had bountiful unwritten laws (the big examples of Roman legal codes are impressive by virtue of being exceptional) which still had weight in their society.

I'm not even trying to be a native apologist or whatever /pol/ might accuse me of, I'm not advocating for unwritten laws over codification either before anyone tries to put those words in my mouth, I'm just saying that something can be unlawful in a society without the law being written.

In many cases Europeans were conquerers rather than "immigrants", but people often frame the Roman crisis regarding migration as "immigration" rather than conquest as well, so it's close enough.

Well the law goes with the settler.

Like in Australia, there was no recognisable law in the civilised sense. There was aboriginal customary law and it changed from nation to nation, but it didn't apply to settlers and vis a vis.

The only law which Australians could apply was the English law and it wouldn't make much sense to call yourself an illegal immigrant under that law, since that law, was designed to encourage and protect your sovereignty. Again you were illegal under aboriginal law and vis a vis. But Australian law is still the dominate law and customary law no longer exists so it's not possible for the settlers descendant to be an illegal immigrant.

You can't be an illegal immigrant In a place were the law was designed and destined to function in your favour.

It's like European countries trying to tell common law countries that human rights are the same as common law rights. Completely different.

>that means it wasn't bad
Yeah rape and murder was totally fine because far back then laws about it didn't even exist.

user, I don't agree with the guy, but you're not talking about law, you're talking about morality.

You could have a law that said "All babies need their heads chopped off" and it'd be legal. The fact that it would be immoral wouldn't make it illegal.

proofs?

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēɡəl/

adjective: illegal

1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
"illegal drugs"
synonyms: unlawful, illicit, illegitimate, criminal, felonious;

In many cases, yes.

>But no land ownership!

Different peoples had different territories, often established by treaty with their neighbors. Europeans did not have to "buy" land in most places, but they did have to get permission to settle. (The difference between these concepts being a source of much conflict.) When they did not bother, they could be considered "illegal immigrants."

Who says there were "no laws" you ignorant cracker?

Excuse me but I'm not a cracker (aka person of Scots-Irish descent), thanks for understanding and next time please don't be culturally insensitive.

>a tribe of 30 feather-niggers dictating laws on clay they might take a dump on once every decade or so

Not illegal if you're the law.

Let's not even bother with legalistic sophistry as it only lends legitimacy to nonsensical historiography, and cut right to the heart of the hypocrisy of this leftist rhetorical charge.

If the "resistance" of Native Americans to colonization is a legitimate and inspirational cause to be celebrated on t-shirts and in indoctrination centers at universities across the nation, doesn't equating European colonists with illegal immigration logically dictate that the torturing and murdering of illegal immigrants from Mexico and across the world in the 21st century, is not only necessary but a moral good?

Not him, I'm not saying the settlers were necessarily right to settle the Americas to the detriment of those already living there, but it can't be illegal if they weren't breaking any fucking laws.

It was taken up as a cause without the historical nuance. It's just a simplistic on the nose "Don't complain about illegal immigrants because that makes you a hypocrite" sort of statement. People championing it don't consider all the specifics of how the natives resisted the Europeans.

>but it can't be illegal if they weren't breaking any fucking laws.

How do you define what the law is, though? Does it have to be a codified law, or are customs acceptable?

So there is no such thing as law in a land with a sparse population? Does that include the present day American southwest?

Yes

I know that.
I just want THEM to realize that.

>entire board is circlejerk about how niggers were primitive and christianity is superior to islam.

If you go to any of those threads and ctrl F /pol/ you'll usually find at least somebody directing the discussion there.

Pretty much

>eating pizza with a knife nd fork

Do Americans really do this?

>They didn't have a concept of personal property.

no

>there is no such thing as law in a land with a sparse population

Law does not exist outside its enforcement.

If nobody enforces the law, it effectively ceases to exist. Law is force.

It has to be a fucking law
Its custom to provide your guests with beer here but its not against the law to not do so
>stealing
>when there are no laws to classify it as such
Lmao
>entire board is a circlejerk about how /pol/ is primitive and socialism is superior

>murder isn't illegal, getting caught is!

>It has to be a fucking law

Meaning what?

Meaning they have to have a legal system with accepted doctrine regarding the ownership and selling of land. They have to have set borders between nations and the ability to enforce the laws they pass

Yes; to a point.

Every piece of land which wasn't holy ground or currently inhabited by someone was no one's land; therefore any one could settle there