Since Christine refuses to participate further, can anyone with her point of view please explain how the US is currently made up of 98% immigrants?
I thought it included descendants of immigrants, as opposed to those who were indigenous to the continent prior to 1492. I remember hearing as a kid "all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants."
I suppose it also depends on how one defines "immigrant," whether it implies some sort of peaceful, legal process - or something different. Were the English settlers at Jamestown in 1607 "immigrants"? Were they squatters, invaders - or something different? Or the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock? And this was over 150 years before America even existed as an independent country. If a British subject relocated from England to the Virginia colony in 1750, would they be considered an immigrant, or merely moving from one province to another within the same country?
Some of my ancestors actually would have been French citizens prior to America's annexation of the Louisiana territory. (Although at some point they would have also been under Spanish jurisdiction since that territory changed hands a couple of times.) They didn't really have to move anywhere, since America itself was expanding and absorbing huge territories. This also led to huge waves of new immigration and internal migration as people went west in a mad rush for land and profit.
Of course, the point is made that America has a long history of immigration and/or migration. But there's also always been a certain degree of opposition to it. That also has a long history.
But in the present context of the immigration debate today, I don't really see it as a debate over history.