I don't know if I have an actual translation, but I thought I'd point out something I think is neat.

In many languages, there's one causative affix, but two different causative meanings that can be derived in
various ways.  So, when I read that sentence in English, I thought to myself, "Does that mean that they're
forcing the foreigners to rule over us, or that they're allowing them to do so?"  Not a trivial distinction.  I
believe the latter is the correct interpretation (right?).  In that case, there's a right and wrong way to do it in

The normal way would be as follows:

foreigners-ACC. we-ACC.-ACC. rule-PAST-3pl.subj

That would come out as, "They forced the foreigners to rule over us".  For the desired meaning, though...

foreigners-DAT. we-ACC. rule-PAST-3pl.subj

Which means, "They've given the foreigners rule over us" or "They let the foreigners rule over us" (the exact
translation/interpretation depends on context).  By putting the top direct object in the dative, the subjects sway
over the object, so to speak, is lessened, so while the subject is still technically the cause of the ruling (it wouldn't
have happened if they weren't there), there's the sense that the object (the foreigners) desired the cause, or
were somehow instrumental in bringing it about.

"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison