New Democratic darling AOC* says "Latinos should not be subject to immigration laws because they are native people" A good legal argument?

I don't either. I am a little shocked that views like that are in our Congress. That is open borders...at least for Latinos. 

Exactly. As I understand it, they are a mix of Spanish and Native Americans or at least Mexicans are generally. But they still need proper documents to come into a country. Open borders is just not a good policy. 

The media is kind of fawning over her right now.

I wouldn't be surprised. I haven't been watching/reading/listening so much.

My original answer there looks too blunt.
:(

Your answer is fine. Sometimes blunt is good. I like blunt: short, sweet and to the point. :)

Thanks, my2cents.
:)

Agree...100%

I don't know if you have Netflix, but if you do, look up John Leguizamo's Latin History for Morons. He's a comedian, so that's why it's got the edgy title, but he actually covers the history/ ancestry really well in it. He listed his sources throughout, though I'm not sure where he got his genetics info from. He says Latinos are 40% Native American. 

Latinos are all sorts of things. They're a huge mix depending on the region they're from. Some have Asian heritage. Others have European heritage. They're also African. 

There was a whole lot happening in North and South America. Lots of activity even before people crossed the ocean, but once people starting coming in from Spain and such, then the blood mixed there too. And, a whole lot of Latinos are not happy about that because those coming over were intruders who either outright murdered and raped their people or or simply killed them with germs. 

Ergo, because so many still have Native American DNA, they're likening their situation to Native Americans (Indians), with some going so far as to say they are Native Americans. And, our Indian tribes are not happy about that either, genetics be damned. 

If we were going to go by ancient history, anyone with ancestors native to this continent would have rights to it, which would mean Native Americans and Latinos would get a free pass to come and go. 

I don't think AOC was wrong in her general concept. We can't argue that Native Americans and Latinos didn't have the land first. They did. They obviously didn't occupy all of it, but they were spread out across the lands we occupy today. And, I also think we cannot deny that early settlers from Spain, Portugal, Italy, and England did horrible things. They absolutely did. They decimated populations.

But, we're hundreds of years out now. If it really was just land they wanted, I might almost be sympathetic. But, they don't want the land. They want the infrastructure that they didn't build. 

Anyone with more details is free to correct me, but this is what I've been able to gather from what I've read/ watched. 

Thanks, JA. 
I don't have netflix.
I'm an Aussie, so my "history" of  America and South America is limited to sketchy summaries from high school days - which qualifies for the dummy category.

If I understand it correctly, the Native Americans, both North and South, had complex societies and were highly territorial; they would never have permitted those outside their tribes or nations to settle on their land on mass. Though they might have used some as slaves, married some, and accepted some as traders and diplomats.

If I understand the conquistadors, they were after land, minerals (esp. gold), power and the spread of Christianity. I've seen a few documentaries of the archeology and history - waves upon waves of abominations of cruelty - but I think there are few groups of people who have never committed atrocities at some point in their histories. It seems all of us are prone to pathologies if sufficiently twisted by upbringing.

It seems most muggers, liberal or conservative, agree with the idea that migrants should only come by legal means. Perhaps it is assumed that this brings a better class of law abiding citizen. As a generalisation, maybe so. But there would be a signifigant number or people for whom that rule would not apply.
Criminals are pretty efficient at organising false documentation, identities and "backgrounds".
Genuine refugees often don't have identity papers for all sorts of reasons. They may have come from areas so poor or remote that they have never had identity papers; some do not even have their births recorded. Or, if they are asylum seekers because of religious persecution (Hindus/Tamils from Sri Lanka, Hazaris from Afghanistan, Rohingya and tribal peoples from Burma, Christians or Yasidis from the Middle East) have refused to give them identity papers and passports as part of the denial of their rights. Surely these people deserve a fair process of review to determine their status, such as that used by the United Nations. 

I don't really know what the definition of a Latino is vs Hispanic etc. I do know that Mexicans are a mix of Native American and Spanish. 

Hispanic simply means Spanish speaker.

Yeah, I think there is more to what she was saying than somehow comes across. I'm terribly unpolitically-savvy, though.

It makes no sense.  Her argument.  And her arguments usually make a lot of sense.  That is what I am basing this on so far.

I thought it was probably being spun and/or something left out. So I looked for the full quote which I pulled from www.hiplatina.com they are supporting her.

Exactly.