Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most didn't come by invitation but they certainly did come legally through Ellis Island and prior to that. In the absence of immigration law then one couldn't come illegally.
Without an aspect of "illegality", there also cannot be a reference to "legality"...
And "Ellis Island" is an extremely limited context of immigration. In fact it is more specifically European immigration, denoting that "other than European" was not as ideal of immigrants. I've said it before, the view is here is that we got our most ideal immigrants at a time of no immigration law, and our best citizens when there were minimal or no requirements to naturalize.
What I find most amazing, is an unwillingness to condemn any part of that society, when most members here belong to a social class (or more than one) that didn't have full citizenship rights (to vote) just 100 years ago...
It gets even funnier when you consider the fact that when Mexico gained its independence Americans were allowed to immigrate to Tejas or Texas as it is referred to today. In 1830 Mexico stopped American immigration because they prohibited slavery which resulted in illegal American immigrants leading the war of Tejas secession. Over time the newly established state of Texas was in the control of those illegal white immigrants whose descendants now complain about Mexicans coming over the border to lands that they used to control. Who says Americans don't get irony.
There were no illegal white immigrants back then at least not for the most part. Here is your clue "used" to control. The U.S. paid milions of dollars for land shortly occupied by Mexico through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago and the Gadsden Purchase. Tell me why the Mexican government hasn't been complaining over the past, just a bunch of resentful peasants.
Without an aspect of "illegality", there also cannot be a reference to "legality"...
And "Ellis Island" is an extremely limited context of immigration. In fact it is more specifically European immigration, denoting that "other than European" was not as ideal of immigrants. I've said it before, the view is here is that we got our most ideal immigrants at a time of no immigration law, and our best citizens when there were minimal or no requirements to naturalize.
What I find most amazing, is an unwillingness to condemn any part of that society, when most members here belong to a social class (or more than one) that didn't have full citizenship rights (to vote) just 100 years ago...
Wrong! In the absence of laws there can be no laws to be broken. I am not comparing legal immigrants of the past to legal immigrants of today in regards to quality. Yes, the rules were different back then because we were a sparsely populated country back then needing manual laborers to build this country. That isn't so today. We need educated immigrants today who are willing to assimilate to our culture and language and won't be a burden to us. We need to keep diversity in mind so that we can retain that.
What would you like us to condemn about immigrants who came here long ago? Again, you keep forgetting that this forum is about illegal immigration, not legal immigration past or present.
There were no illegal white immigrants back then at least not for the most part. Here is your clue "used" to control. The U.S. paid milions of dollars for land shortly occupied by Mexico through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago and the Gadsden Purchase. Tell me why the Mexican government hasn't been complaining over the past, just a bunch of resentful peasants.
Except the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsen Purchase had no portion that was directed at the lands of Texas, to which the poster YOu were responding to had commented about...
It gets even funnier when you consider the fact that when Mexico gained its independence Americans were allowed to immigrate to Tejas or Texas as it is referred to today. In 1830 Mexico stopped American immigration because they prohibited slavery which resulted in illegal American immigrants leading the war of Tejas secession. Over time the newly established state of Texas was in the control of those illegal white immigrants whose descendants now complain about Mexicans coming over the border to lands that they used to control. Who says Americans don't get irony.
It was obvious you couldn't argue about the 14th Amendment, now its obvious you haven't a clue about the Texas secession. It was Spain prior to Mexico gaining Independence that allowed others to enter and be granted land under stipulation, Mexico simply carried it over in 1821.Those illegal American Immigrants were in fact legal Mexican Citizens, With little money for the military, Mexico encouraged settlers to create their own militias for protection against hostile Indian tribes. Tejas was very sparsely populated and in the hope that an influx of settlers could control the Indian raids, the government liberalized immigration policies for the region. They were known as empresarials. Mexico imposed two conditions on land ownership: settlers had to become Mexican citizens and they had to convert to Roman Catholicism. By l830 there were l6,000 Americans in Texas. At that time, Americans formed a 4-to-1 majority in the northern section of Coahuila y Tejas, but people Hispanic heritage formed a majority in the state as a whole.
Quote:
Texians had become increasingly disillusioned with the Mexican government. Many Mexican soldiers garrisoned in Texas were convicted criminals who had been given the choice of prison or serving in the army in Texas. Many Texians were also unhappy with the location of their state capital, which moved periodically between Saltillo and Monclova, both of which were in southern Coahuila, some 500 miles (800 km) away; they wanted Texas to be a separate state from Coahuila (but not independent from Mexico) and to have its own capital. They believed a closer capital would help to stem corruption and facilitate other matters of government.
And then you have Santa Ana's contributions to the problem as well:
The Constitution of 1824 that was no longer being recognized by General Antonio López de Santa Anna Pérez de Lebrón who decided to abolish the Constitution of 1824 and proclaimed a new anti-federalist constitution in its place, the Siete Leyes of 1835.
Between 1829 and 1832, a series of Mexican presidents were killed in a series of coups. Santa Anna had a hand in each of these events. The Mexican Republic became heavily divided between two factions known as Conservatives, who were for a centralized monarchical government, and Liberals, who were for a democratic federal government. In the presidential elections of 1833, Santa Anna ran as a liberal and won. Soon after, Santa Anna retired to his hacienda, allowing Vice President Valentín Gómez Farías to run the country. The government initiated drastic liberal reforms, angering the Conservatives. Returning from his hacienda, Santa Anna renounced the government's policies and overthrew the presidency, forcing Gomez Farías and many of his supporters to flee Mexico for the United States. Santa Anna declared that Mexico was not ready for democracy, became an openly Conservative centralist, and appointed himself dictator. The War of Mexican Independence started after Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808, now Santa Anna fancied himself, the Napoleon of Mexico.
At the same time Texas declared independence, other Mexican states also decided to secede from Mexico and form their own republics. The state of Yucatán formed the Republic of Yucatán, which was recognized by Great Britain, and the states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas joined together to form the Republic of the Rio Grande. Several other states also went into open rebellion, including San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Jalisco and Zacatecas. All were upset with Santa Anna abolishing the 1824 Constitution, disbanding Congress, changing the structure of government from a federal structure to a centralized one, and the expulsion of the Spaniards. Texas, however, was the only territory to be successful in detaching itself from Mexico.
It was obvious you couldn't argue about the 14th Amendment, now its obvious you haven't a clue about the Texas secession. It was Spain prior to Mexico gaining Independence that allowed others to enter and be granted land under stipulation, Mexico simply carried it over in 1821.Those illegal American Immigrants were in fact legal Mexican Citizens, With little money for the military, Mexico encouraged settlers to create their own militias for protection against hostile Indian tribes. Tejas was very sparsely populated and in the hope that an influx of settlers could control the Indian raids, the government liberalized immigration policies for the region. They were known as empresarials. Mexico imposed two conditions on land ownership: settlers had to become Mexican citizens and they had to convert to Roman Catholicism. By l830 there were l6,000 Americans in Texas. At that time, Americans formed a 4-to-1 majority in the northern section of Coahuila y Tejas, but people Hispanic heritage formed a majority in the state as a whole.
But I thought YOu said they were Mexican citizens...
And Mexican citizenship was open to all races, also meaning slavery was prohibited in Mexico...
Thus having a third condition for immigrants, the one least-observed by those coming from the United States: That YOu couldn't have slaves...
But I thought YOu said they were Mexican citizens...
And Mexican citizenship was open to all races, also meaning slavery was prohibited in Mexico...
Thus having a third condition for immigrants, the one least-observed by those coming from the United States: That YOu couldn't have slaves...
They were Mexican Citizens, they were American Immigrants (as stated) to Mexico. The Mexicans who immigrate here still call themselves Mexicans. In this instance it refers to their heritage.
Actually there was a 1 year moratorium on the Americans migrating there having slaves, after the 1st year they were to be freed. They got around it by calling them indentured servants for life.
There were no illegal white immigrants back then at least not for the most part.
Which is it none or for the most part?
Quote:
just a bunch of resentful peasants.
Yes the Mexican founders of Texas and California were nothing but mere peasants.
The Mexican population that remained in the Texas republic faced open hostility and the constant threat of violence. Many families were forced to abandoned their land, cattle, and possessions and flee for their lives. Regardless of their social status, no Mexicans in the territory were safe. The family of Martìn De León, empresario and founder of the prosperous Mexican colony at Victoria on the lower Guadalupe River, fled to Louisiana after Agapito, one of the sons, was murdered by Mabry B. "Mustang" Gray, who was caught rustling De León cattle, and, Fernando, another son, was wounded in a similar confrontation. Other prominent Mexican residents of Victoria, including the Benavides and Carbajal, families were driven from their farms and ranches and into exile.
Juan Seguín, who had organized the Mexican unit of the Texas militia that served as a the rear guard of Sam Houston's retreating army and fought bravely at the battle of San Jacinto, and who was the only Mexican to serve in the senate of the Texas republic, eventually had to flee to safety in Mexico and take his family with him. By the end of 1840s over 200 prominent Spanish families that had lived in San Antonio since the early 1800s, were gone, their properties seized by whites. The only sanctuary for refugees in the interim republic was in the Mexican settlements along the Rio Grande, especially in the lower river valley.
It isn't accurate to say "legally at the invitation of the American government" for any period, place, or peoples, immigrating to the United States. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was known for multiple language use across its subjects, ignored for YOur comment, along with unmentioned enclaves and the pattern of not intermarrying with other populations for YOUr specific ancestry. Revisionist history is very common for us to make on our immigrant ancestors.
All of mine came much before Ellis Island, but I'm not of any opinion to define a legality (in the absence of immigration law at the time for their ethnicity) for coming here, much less to say it was by "invitation"...
Eleanora1 was discussing those people AFTER they came to the US. The Austro-Hungarians learned ENGLISH and became AMERICAN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
