Ann Coulter's Immigrant Ancestry

[Sousuke 1,214]

The part in bold makes my brain hurt. How can she logically differentiate between a "settler" and an "immigrant"? Yes I can understand how a settler might not be an immigrant, such as a Roman born in the capital moving to a frontier territory like germania. But she is of Irish descent and her family clearly immigrated.

In a recent appearance on The View to promote her latest book, Ann Coulter reiterated her well-known anti-immigrant stance. Guest host Ana Navarro responded, saying, "Let me point out that you're sitting at this table next to two immigrants ... What is your family's immigration story? Are you a Native American?"

Coulter's reply was curious: "Yes, I am. I'm a settler. I'm descended from settlers. Not from immigrants ... I'm not living in the Cherokee Nation. I'm living in America, which was created by settlers, not immigrants."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan-smolenyak-smolenyak/ann-coulters-immigrant-an_b_8332212.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[decocker 7,198]

so basically she's of irish/german immigrant descent. just like me. just like a ton of us. i shudder...

but i don't get the 'i'm not living in the cherokee nation' bit..

[GandD 5,966]

Native American's were immigrants too.

so basically she's of irish/german immigrant descent. just like me. just like a ton of us. i shudder...

but i don't get the 'i'm not living in the cherokee nation' bit..

It means that because the Cherokee didn't have a flag, the land wasn't theirs. Therefore the America's were just free, unclaimed land. Gotta plant your flag folks. "No flag, no country" - Eddie Izzard

[decocker 7,198]

Native American's were immigrants too.

It means that because the Cherokee didn't have a flag, the land wasn't theirs. Therefore the America's were just free, unclaimed land. Gotta plant your flag folks. "No flag, no country" - Eddie Izzard

ooooooh. ok. now i get it.

we dominated savages with our fancy white man diseases, so it goes.

[Sousuke 1,214]

ooooooh. ok. now i get it.

we dominated savages with our fancy white man diseases, so it goes.

The irony is that the Cherokees wanted to coexist to the point of full assimilation. The adopted US laws etc.

[decocker 7,198]

The irony is that the Cherokees wanted to coexist to the point of full assimilation. The adopted US laws etc.

never make a deal with a devil. first mistake.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

never make a deal with a devil. first mistake.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

The part in bold makes my brain hurt. How can she logically differentiate between a "settler" and an "immigrant"? Yes I can understand how a settler might not be an immigrant, such as a Roman born in the capital moving to a frontier territory like germania. But she is of Irish descent and her family clearly immigrated.

In a recent appearance on The View to promote her latest book, Ann Coulter reiterated her well-known anti-immigrant stance. Guest host Ana Navarro responded, saying, "Let me point out that you're sitting at this table next to two immigrants ... What is your family's immigration story? Are you a Native American?"

Coulter's reply was curious: "Yes, I am. I'm a settler. I'm descended from settlers. Not from immigrants ... I'm not living in the Cherokee Nation. I'm living in America, which was created by settlers, not immigrants."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan-smolenyak-smolenyak/ann-coulters-immigrant-an_b_8332212.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I think she is anti illegal immigrants, not legal. You know there is a difference.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I think she is anti illegal immigrants, not legal. You know there is a difference.

If that's what she means, she should have said that. If we take the proposition that with the entirety of the United States explored and "settled" (whether or not that settlement is in private or public hands), there is no possibility of further settlement of the United States. Therefore, all those foreign nationals entering into the United States -- either legally or illegally -- with the intention to stay indefinitely are incapable of being settlers. If they are not settlers, the usual classification of these people is "immigrant."

We should then consider if it is possible that America has been fully "created," as she puts it, or if the United States continues to grow or shrink -- economically, geographically, culturally, in its population, and so on. It is difficult to make the argument that the United States -- or indeed any extant nation -- has truly been "created," or that it ever will be until it finally collapses and is but a chapter in history.

What she probably means, in all fairness, is that those people who entered the United States prior to and during the Westward Expansion "created" America. But where is that line drawn? Should we take it to mean that those many, many people who entered through Ellis Island in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and who stayed in the long-settled East, were not "settlers," because they did not go forth and take land for themselves? Or were they immigrants? If they were merely "immigrants," does that make them less worthy of being "real Americans"?

[Rob L 3,811]

Make sense... Settlers of Catan USA edition...I always pegged her to be a secret uber geekess

[Sousuke 1,214]

I think she is anti illegal immigrants, not legal. You know there is a difference.

I was going to clarify, but Killary's response is so spot on, I'm just going to say "what she said" lol.

If that's what she means, she should have said that. If we take the proposition that with the entirety of the United States explored and "settled" (whether or not that settlement is in private or public hands), there is no possibility of further settlement of the United States. Therefore, all those foreign nationals entering into the United States -- either legally or illegally -- with the intention to stay indefinitely are incapable of being settlers. If they are not settlers, the usual classification of these people is "immigrant."

We should then consider if it is possible that America has been fully "created," as she puts it, or if the United States continues to grow or shrink -- economically, geographically, culturally, in its population, and so on. It is difficult to make the argument that the United States -- or indeed any extant nation -- has truly been "created," or that it ever will be until it finally collapses and is but a chapter in history.

What she probably means, in all fairness, is that those people who entered the United States prior to and during the Westward Expansion "created" America. But where is that line drawn? Should we take it to mean that those many, many people who entered through Ellis Island in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and who stayed in the long-settled East, were not "settlers," because they did not go forth and take land for themselves? Or were they immigrants? If they were merely "immigrants," does that make them less worthy of being "real Americans"?

Make sense... Settlers of Catan USA edition...I always pegged her to be a secret uber geekess

Is this real? I love Settler's of Catan. Definitely going to get this for Christmas.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

If that's what she means, she should have said that. If we take the proposition that with the entirety of the United States explored and "settled" (whether or not that settlement is in private or public hands), there is no possibility of further settlement of the United States. Therefore, all those foreign nationals entering into the United States -- either legally or illegally -- with the intention to stay indefinitely are incapable of being settlers. If they are not settlers, the usual classification of these people is "immigrant."

We should then consider if it is possible that America has been fully "created," as she puts it, or if the United States continues to grow or shrink -- economically, geographically, culturally, in its population, and so on. It is difficult to make the argument that the United States -- or indeed any extant nation -- has truly been "created," or that it ever will be until it finally collapses and is but a chapter in history.

What she probably means, in all fairness, is that those people who entered the United States prior to and during the Westward Expansion "created" America. But where is that line drawn? Should we take it to mean that those many, many people who entered through Ellis Island in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and who stayed in the long-settled East, were not "settlers," because they did not go forth and take land for themselves? Or were they immigrants? If they were merely "immigrants," does that make them less worthy of being "real Americans"?

To me personally I don't really see much difference or why it matters. Immigrants or settlers I'd basically semantics.

The real nut of the argument is mass uncontrolled entry into our country by people of all nations.

[Sousuke 1,214]

To me personally I don't really see much difference or why it matters. Immigrants or settlers I'd basically semantics.

The real nut of the argument is mass uncontrolled entry into our country by people of all nations.

I agree the system is broken and we basically have an economic situation that draws people into the country illegally. I think most people that want to stop illegal immigration are not anti immigrant. That being said, Ann Coulter is openly anti-immigrant - all immigrants from what I can tell.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I think most rational people agree on illegal immigration. As for AC I don't really know enough about her views to be able to comment

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

To me personally I don't really see much difference or why it matters. Immigrants or settlers I'd basically semantics.

The real nut of the argument is mass uncontrolled entry into our country by people of all nations.

Here's the rub -- it should be semantics. But she has drawn a line of demarcation between "settlers" (the good ones?) and "immigrants" (the bad ones?), when neither of those words without adjectives really means anything in this particular context, read objectively. This is not an objective argument she is making, however. She is arguing that "settlers" (and their descendants) are authentic Americans, and "immigrants" (and their descendants) are not. "Settlers" have earned the right to be here, and "immigrants" are not. Under this hypothesis, your spouse or fiance (I assume you are the USC, and your other half from England) will therefore never be a real American if he or she seeks naturalisation. That's a real problem, in my view. I'm trying not to use the phrase "dog whistle" here, but hey, I can hear it.

In addition, you're shifting the goalposts a bit here. First, you say that she's talking about illegal immigration, and not legal immigration, and yet you then say that you "don't really know enough about her views to be able to comment." You can't have it both ways. Further, if the "real nut" is "mass uncontrolled entry," as you claim, why is she talking about settlers in the first place?

I was going to clarify, but Killary's response is so spot on, I'm just going to say "what she said" lol.

I was channelling my inner Sousuke when I wrote it!