U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2007, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Montara
Remember also that most Mexicans feel that the occupation of the Southwestern portion of the United States by the United States is as legal as the US occupation of Iraq. The conquest of the Southwest was a pure war of aggression. You may not wish to consider this, but they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
I was following your logic until this point (not necessarily agreeing with it, but able to follow the reasoning). I don't know how you can support the statement above.
I agree as well with you, NewToCa.

Being that Spain's Cortez conquered the Aztecs, etc. in what is now Mexico, the present day Hispanics there would look like flaming hypocrites demanding 'their' land back which was also 'stolen'.

And too Texas fought and won their independence from Mexico back in 1836.

Piece of trivia here: the Alamo was defended in part by the sons of many of the rebels who helped eject Spain from Mexican ca. 1821------apparently, the sons had no more use for Mexico City.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2007, 02:17 PM
 
17,279 posts, read 24,961,305 times
Reputation: 8519
Quote:
Originally Posted by GH0ST.. View Post
the guadalupe-hidalgo treaty was only agreed to by mexico because the united states threatened them with total annexation. it was a display of aggressive power.

Who cares?! MEXICO is a made-up colonial nation like the United States based on SPANISH aggression and conquest!

Countries usually enter into treaties under duress.... that duress is called the threat of continuance of war. It matters not why Mexico's leaders chose to sign the treaty. It's not like they were successful at colonizing the Southwest anyway, so MAYBE they just didn't care all that much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Who cares?! MEXICO is a made-up colonial nation like the United States based on SPANISH aggression and conquest!

Countries usually enter into treaties under duress.... that duress is called the threat of continuance of war. It matters not why Mexico's leaders chose to sign the treaty. It's not like they were successful at colonizing the Southwest anyway, so MAYBE they just didn't care all that much.
Mexico's biggest problem by far is its basic culture-------which can and probably will change.

It is not exactly poor in natural resources, etc. with the possible exception of drinkable water.

That stated: 50 years ago Ireland, Italy and Spain were poor countries-------not these days
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 02:43 PM
 
17,279 posts, read 24,961,305 times
Reputation: 8519
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear View Post
Mexico's biggest problem by far is its basic culture-------which can and probably will change.
And yet we're supposed to embrace it.

No thanks. I'll take some of the best parts of Mexican culture... like the food, and they can leave that poor attitude at the border.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizonabear
It is not exactly poor in natural resources, etc. with the possible exception of drinkable water.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizonabear
That stated: 50 years ago Ireland, Italy and Spain were poor countries-------not these days
Because Mexico's national answer to its problems is, "move to another country" (I.e., the USA), I don't see Mexico turning around without some fundamental changes at home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 02:54 PM
 
66 posts, read 82,190 times
Reputation: 16
The invasion of Mexico was a project of President Polk and big business interests.
One US army was landed at Veracruz, conquered Mexico City and held it for two years!
Another US army entered at southern Texas, conquered and occupied Monterrey.
Another US army entered New Mexico, split, one group went south to El Paso, conquered and occupied Chihuaha
US Naval forces conquered and occupied Mexico's west coast ports and held them for several years.
Justify these actions please.

Part of the US Army under Colonel Kearney went west to California and was nearly defeated by the Californios at the battle of San Pasquale, they had to be rescued by US Naval forces and Marines from the occupation fleet at San Diego.

Yet another US Army entered California from Oregon and proceeded south, imprisoning the governor of Alta California and connected with Commodore Stockton's forces near Los Angeles.

The net result was the loss of half the Mexican nation.

Can someone explain to me how this was not a pure war of aggression?

Please do not tell me of Spanish conquests, or Native American displacement, those are red herrings, please limit the discussion to the conflict between the United States of Mexico and the United States of America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Montara View Post
The invasion of Mexico was a project of President Polk and big business interests.
One US army was landed at Veracruz, conquered Mexico City and held it for two years!
Another US army entered at southern Texas, conquered and occupied Monterrey.
Another US army entered New Mexico, split, one group went south to El Paso, conquered and occupied Chihuaha
US Naval forces conquered and occupied Mexico's west coast ports and held them for several years.
Justify these actions please.

Part of the US Army under Colonel Kearney went west to California and was nearly defeated by the Californios at the battle of San Pasquale, they had to be rescued by US Naval forces and Marines from the occupation fleet at San Diego.

Yet another US Army entered California from Mexico and proceed south, imprisoning the governor of Alta California and connected with Commodore Stockton's forces near Los Angeles.

The net result was the loss of half the Mexican nation.

Can someone explain to me how this was not a pure war of aggression?

Please do not tell me of Spanish conquests, or Native American displacement, those are red herrings, please limit the discussion to the conflict between the United States of Mexico and the United States of America.
Point is moot.

Rightly or wrongly; Mexico was subjugated and defeated--------almost 140 years ago.

Besides; Mexico was under French domination ca. 1867 so the former country did not regain its independence till afterwards.

And; there is the definite possibility that Nuevo Leon, etc. may wind up telling Mexico City to stuff it and petition to join the USA---------the paisanos in that Mx state are apparently tired of subsidizing the states closer to Guatamala.

Many other countries suffered far worse than Mexico yet today they are powerhouses: Germany and Japan come to mind in just the last 60 years.

No sir: Mexico needs to get its own house in order first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 03:06 PM
 
17,279 posts, read 24,961,305 times
Reputation: 8519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Montara View Post
The invasion of Mexico was a project of President Polk and big business interests.
One US army was landed at Veracruz, conquered Mexico City and held it for two years!
Another US army entered at southern Texas, conquered and occupied Monterrey.
Another US army entered New Mexico, split, one group went south to El Paso, conquered and occupied Chihuaha
US Naval forces conquered and occupied Mexico's west coast ports and held them for several years.
Justify these actions please.
Why should I justify those actions? They have nothing to do with present realities.

Bringing up the Mexican-American war in an immigration debate is not useful, a waste of time, and a sad sad attempt to justify your point of view. We don't buy that point of view, history is unsympathetic to it, and if the world operated according to that point of view, there'd be cross border problems around the world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Montara
The net result was the loss of half the Mexican nation.
No, the net result was the loss of "territory" that Mexico couldn't hold onto. VERY FEW "Mexicans" actually LIVED there. The "nation" of Mexico, the part that actually had successful settlement, was fine, SOUTH of the Rio Grande.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Montara
Please do not tell me of Spanish conquests, or Native American displacement, those are red herrings, please limit the discussion to the conflict between the United States of Mexico and the United States of America.
Of course not, because highlighting the illegitimacy and lack of control over Mexico's claim to the territory that the United States ultimately gained control of would expose the banality and ridiculousness of the constant carping about the "loss" of the Southwest US by Mexico. (And all for the better, obviously, since we can only IMAGINE a Southwestern United States in as bad condition as present day Mexico under Mexican rule).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Let me toss in something else:

Mexico fought an 'illegal' war against Spain 25 odd year prior to the 1848 conflict-------maybe Spain would like to 'punish' Mexico for its defiance.

Never mind that today's Spain is becoming quite affluent------it has been said that many countries; Great Britain, France, Japan, etc, once they lose their territories they tend to be better off.

Apparently; colonies can be more a hindrance than a help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 03:20 PM
 
66 posts, read 82,190 times
Reputation: 16
So far, no one has contested my salient point, the invasion of Mexico was pure aggression for no other reason than the acquisition of territory. Your other arguments are not valid.
Quote:
Why should I justify those actions? They have nothing to do with present realities.
Yes, they most certainly do. Many Mexicans do not feel that they are entering another country, but entering their own land illegally occupied by another nation.

Quote:
No, the net result was the loss of "territory" that Mexico couldn't hold onto. VERY FEW "Mexicans" actually LIVED there. The "nation" of Mexico, the part that actually had successful settlement, was fine, SOUTH of the Rio Grande.
This statement means that Alaska is up for grabs also, since very few Americans live there.

Your statements regarding successful settlement are not valid. The goal of Polk was the acquisition of California, which was settled with towns and ranches and farms.

Incidentally the Californios fought an insurgency for many years against the American occupiers, of course they were called bandits (regime holdouts and deadenders I guess) and hung or beheaded when caught, .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2007, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Montara View Post
So far, no one has contested my salient point, the invasion of Mexico was pure aggression for no other reason than the acquisition of territory. Your other arguments are not valid. Yes, they most certainly do. Many Mexicans do not feel that they are entering another country, but entering their own land illegally occupied by another nation.



This statement means that Alaska is up for grabs also, since very few Americans live there.

Your statements regarding successful settlement are not valid. The goal of Polk was the acquisition of California, which was settled with towns and ranches and farms.

Incidentally the Californios fought an insurgency for many years against the American occupiers, of course they were called bandits (regime holdouts and deadenders I guess) and hung or beheaded when caught, .
Fair enough: the USA defeated Mexico in a war of aggression.

If you attempt to use that excuse for the illegal immigration here; we will continue to throw what Spain did to to the Aztecs, etc.

Fair is fair.

Hindsight being 20/20; the USA should have taken the whole country; God knows the 'Mexican' people would be better off socio-economically today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top