Your current lack of civility makes continuing this discussion somewhat pointless. I think you are being absurd. I guess it ends here.

Yeah, sure. Asking you to provide actual evidence to support (demeaning) judgmental claims you made about people writing in these threads as suppressors of (political) speech is "pointless" since you deem asking for such evidence to be a "lack of civility". I'd ask the same questions for the third time that I've asked twice before that you have refused to answer in any way at all, but we all know that you have no answer and that's why you divert into your irrelevant (and I believe completely bogus) accusation of incivility, so I won't bother to ask again... if you had any answers you would have gladly and simply provided them and supported your unfounded claims the first time they were asked. You can now safely retreat to your safe space where no one will be allowed to question your slurs upon people that don't agree with you.

But since I only asked this one once, I'll give you a second chance on this one (dreaded incivility and all!). Seriously, I'd like to hear who "America" is and exactly what claims "it" is making. Even just a link will do.

The thing that bothers me most about America is not freedom or lack of freedom, but the fact that it is not what it claims to be.

Who or what is the "it" that makes claims about what the United States "is"? Perhaps you would be more at home living in some other country that is what it claims to be. You are "free" to move. Where will you be moving to? And when?

Are you claiming that Native American tribes and the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands had legal immigration policies, and illegal immigration policies? Which ones and what specifically were the policies?

You think a Pueblo could mosey into a Navajo or Apache village and ask for papers to become an official member of the community? Or just move on in without asking and wait and see if they ever took action against him as an "illegal immigrant"?

Hell, as I understand it, and I could be completely wrong, Hawaiians of one island killed Hawaiians on other islands... what was their immigration policy from island to island? And what about that time that one chief invited the other island chiefs to Kona? Oh, never mind...

Okay, in "honor" of the day dedicated to the memory of Kamehameha a brief historical reprise which outlines the welcoming attitude displayed by Kamehameha to "immigrants" and even the people just living on other islands or parts of the island he didn't control. Talk about "uncivil"...

http://hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/9873/Kamehameha-The-Founding-of-the-Hawaiian-Kingdom.aspx

Founding of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Warfare was a familiar part of early Hawaiian life. Interludes of peace were often broken by fierce battles to determine succession to the office of ali'i-nui and to establish political boundaries. Aspiring young chiefs practiced the arts of warfare with great intensity. Typically, having defeated other chiefs to gain control over one island, a major chief and his warriors would then raid and attempt to conquer other islands.

After almost a decade of fighting, Kamehameha had still not conquered all his enemies. So he heeded the advice of a seer on Kaua'i and erected a great new heiau at Pu'ukohola in Kawaihae for worship and for sacrifices to Kamehameha's war god Ku. Kamehameha hoped to thereby gain the spiritual power that would enable him to conquer the island. Some say that the rival chief Keoua was invited to Pu'ukohola to negotiate peace, but instead was killed and sacrificed on the heiau's altar.

After nine years at O'ahu, Kamehameha made a lengthy tour of his kingdom and finally settled at Kailua-Kona, where he lived for the next seven years. His rise to power had been based on invasion, on the use of superior force, and upon political machinations. His successful conquests, fueled by "compelling forces operating within Hawaiian society," were also influenced by foreign interests represented by men like Captain Vancouver.

Etc.   

Okay, in "honor" of the day dedicated to the memory of Kamehameha a brief historical reprise which outlines the welcoming attitude displayed by Kamehameha to "immigrants" and even the people just living on other islands or parts of the island he didn't control. Talk about "uncivil"...

http://hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/9873/Kamehameha-The-Founding-of-the-Hawaiian-Kingdom.aspx

Founding of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Warfare was a familiar part of early Hawaiian life. Interludes of peace were often broken by fierce battles to determine succession to the office of ali'i-nui and to establish political boundaries. Aspiring young chiefs practiced the arts of warfare with great intensity. Typically, having defeated other chiefs to gain control over one island, a major chief and his warriors would then raid and attempt to conquer other islands.

After almost a decade of fighting, Kamehameha had still not conquered all his enemies. So he heeded the advice of a seer on Kaua'i and erected a great new heiau at Pu'ukohola in Kawaihae for worship and for sacrifices to Kamehameha's war god Ku. Kamehameha hoped to thereby gain the spiritual power that would enable him to conquer the island. Some say that the rival chief Keoua was invited to Pu'ukohola to negotiate peace, but instead was killed and sacrificed on the heiau's altar.

After nine years at O'ahu, Kamehameha made a lengthy tour of his kingdom and finally settled at Kailua-Kona, where he lived for the next seven years. His rise to power had been based on invasion, on the use of superior force, and upon political machinations. His successful conquests, fueled by "compelling forces operating within Hawaiian society," were also influenced by foreign interests represented by men like Captain Vancouver.

Etc.   

After using guns and cannons to conqueror the islands,  did he then ban guns and cannons?  So no one would overthrow him.  The irony is his legacy was later taken over by guns and cannons. 
I know the kingdom had a "military" of sorts,  the riflemen, but they were mostly white and had their own firearms

Love > hate