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.
I don't think your analysis is applicable. The revolution ended in 1921. Until recently the llegal immigration into the United States was minimal. The Bracero program brought legal seasonal workers into the US until 1962 when the program ended. For the next twenty years most of the illegal immigration was still seasonal.
That you question my use of the word stability indicates a lack of understanding of the post revolution period of Mexican history, I suggest that you start by reading this book; The Frozen Revolution.
The "mass hemorrage" (sic) is due to the economic disparity between the United States and Mexicom, and that is a result of the consequences of the Revolution..
It is important to remember that Mexico has not been a democracy, but merely held the facade of a democracy. Fox was the first democratically elected President of Mexico in 70 years. The PRI held power insured stability, and the result of that effort resulted in the economic disparity, which has led to the immigration into the US.
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.
The argument in your last paragraph really "bad word" me off. I am so sick of this arguement. Can you imagine what the southwest would be like if it had belonged to Mexico all this time? It would be a 3rd world country just like mexico is now. Americans made it what it is, and now mexico wants it back. If it had been in mexicos hands all this time, the mexicans would just be walking across the border further north to invade America...what would their argument be then?
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.
Y'all lost, what's so hard to understand? It's the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...it does not belong to you...kindly go home now.
The argument in your last paragraph really "bad word" me off. I am so sick of this arguement. Can you imagine what the southwest would be like if it had belonged to Mexico all this time? It would be a 3rd world country just like mexico is now. Americans made it what it is, and now mexico wants it back. If it had been in mexicos hands all this time, the mexicans would just be walking across the border further north to invade America...what would their argument be then?
Some people (of any race/ethnicity) would rather see 'their' people in poverty if it meant destroying a different culture that treats the latter better.
i.e. better for Mexico to 'keep' Latinos of that heritage in the barrio vs. the same group of Latinos speaking English, living well in suburbia, etc. as Americans, not Mexicans.
I smell sour grapes here AKA jealousy that our Southwest is nirvana under US rule.
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.
Let me get this straight: A new and made up nationality and nation at the time, Mexicans, feel that because Mexico had very weak claims to lands in the Southwestern United States about 150 years ago, they have a "right" to lands that their weak nation couldn't hold onto? Even if they come from lands that WEREN'T and AREN'T part of the territory that was ceded to the United States?
Do Spanish (real Spanish) people get automatic admittance to claim land in Mexico? Do the French get to bypass immigration and settle in the Louisiana Purchase lands?
But anyway, by your own admittance, Americans have a right and duty to reject and fight against Mexicans coming into the country, because their intentions are not anything benevolent.
Doesn't take much for you to show your true colors, huh?
What part of "The Southwestern United States is ONLY an attractive place for Mexicans to migrate to BECAUSE it's not a part of Mexico" don't you understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Montara
This statement means that Alaska is up for grabs also, since very few Americans live there.
Poor analogy. The US has the ability to defend its sparsely populated territories, which is a tenant of sovereignty. Mexico couldn't. So they lost their territory. It was barely a nation at the time the US "agressively" took from Mexico what really didn't belong to Mexico in the first place because it belonged to Native Americans. How does that sound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Montara
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, .
All of this is for naught. The borders exist NOW. By your own weak arguments, anyone from Central America should be able to flow into Mexico through the South, since their cultural homelands were articificically carved up by the Spanish.
Pure garbage, Sr. Montara. Interesting as an argument, but no more relevant than a science-fiction "what if". The US Southwest was lost in a war of aggression, as you say. Most wars ARE "of aggression". Those who lose wars usually lose something--that's how we know who won, and who lost.
My in-laws are the "Californios" you mentioned. They were here when the Spanish arrived, right through the short period of Mexican rule, the California Republic, and on to being ruled by the US. Though Mexicans and othere have married into the family over the centuries, I can assure you that NO ONE that I know of has the slightest desire to "revert" to being a part of Mexico. In fact, we have a long-standing joke upon re-entering the US after a visit to Mexico, in which these "Hispanics" make joking references along the lines of "Thank GOD we lost THIS !!" (meaning California). Fun place to visit for US Hispanics, but who'd want to live there? I know a number of elderly Mexican immigrants who refuse to even VISIT family back there, so bitter are their memories of abusive landlords, bullying cops, etc.
Common sense tells anyone that, had this area NOT been included into the US, California today would be just like Sonora, Sinaloa, or Baja California. There's nothing that would make anyone think it would be any different. The problems with those places are not with the land or resources; the problems are caused by the blatantly unfair Mexican system.
Many parties "lost" in the dramatic history of the American West. Sir Francis Drake actually claimed California for England in 1579 (he called it "New Albion"). The English "lost" California, though.
The Russians actually built a fort here, (Fort Ross--still standing), and, from their base in Sitka, brought Aleut seal hunters down to the Channel Islands, marooning them for the season to collect furs. The Russians eventually "lost" California. (They also "lost" Alaska).
Great Britain once had serious claims to the Pacific Northwest, and did quite a bit of exploring and trading there. Eventually they "lost" it to the Americans.
Yet today, we see no angry illegal English immigrants storming through the streets of Seattle, Portland, or Spokane, waving British flags and demanding their "rights". The place isn't theirs anymore---they lost it.
The Russians have kept a low profile, too. Though there is a Russian immigrant community in the Santa Monica area, none of them seem to be demanding the return of California to Russia. They have the common sense to know that the game is up---they lost. (But I bet they're secretly happy they DID lose. I don't think they'd really want to see California become part of Russia).
It's funny that the millions of Mexican illegals here feel the need to uproot themselves and move into the "occupied" part of Mexico. If the gringos are so evil, why not just stay home in the "regular" part of Mexico?. Everything there is better, isn't it? Otherwiise, why would there be so much complaining of their hardships in "el Norte"? Why would anyone voluntarily migrate to an evil land full of racist gabachos? --UNLESS (maybe)--those racists aren't REALLY so evil...and have (maybe) made it possible for the illegals to have a better life than they would under the "benevolent" rule of their rulers in Mexico? Maybe these Mexican leaders, and their government, are actually WORSE than the gringos---is that possible?...scary thought, but I think we should check it out.
Your post sounds pretty silly--though I've read much worse on this forum, I have to admit...
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.
The only reason you don't want to hear about the Spanish conquests is because it shows that the Mexicans and Spanish are no different than any other country in the world. It is part of history. Getover it.
Now onto the present....
Can you explain to all of us why we should not consider the INVASION of Mexican illegals into our country is not a war of agressive demographic displacemnt?
You are tryng to make excuses for the criminals that come to our country illegally and nothing else.
One of the things (two?) that amazes me about Americans is that their knowledge of history is abyssmal, and that they do not understand that the past is prologue to the present. The historical interplay between Mexico and the United States has much to do with the current problem and is ignored at our peril. Just as the historical interplay between the United States and the Muslim world has much to do with the current problem and American ignoring of that interplay has created great peril for Americans.
Trivia; The Texicans fought for independence from Mexico because Mexico forbade slavery, and the Texicans wanted to keep their slaves, an addendum to that is "Yellow Rose of Texas" she was not a North European blonde, but a high yellow prostitute, high yellow meaning she was of mixed black and white blood.
Taking a look at your arguments, I can only conclude that I am not dealing with well educated people. You bring in all sorts of ancillary comments which still do not addresss my point. I believe I am dealing with people who have an agenda, and will ignore data and repeat opinion.
Here is my post. The Mexican American war was a war of aggression, to say that most wars are, is irrelevant. Half the nation of Mexico was lost to the Americans, whether the hold of Mexico on the territory was weak or strong is irrelevant. Mexicans resent the loss of their territory, they resent the two year occupation of their capitol, they resent the two year occupation of their sea ports. They also resent the invasion of Mexico by the Marines and Army on other occasions. fact, not opintion
There is resentment of America by Mexicans, fact not opinion
there is a movement in Mexico to recover the lost lands by illegal entry. Fact not opinion
That someone has Californio relatives who do not wish to become part of Mexico is completely irrelevant.
There is illegal immigration, fact not opinion
There is a sense among Mexicans that the Southwest is part of Mexico, fact not opinion
Quote:
You are tryng to make excuses for the criminals that come to our country illegally and nothing else.
Take a look at what I wrote, please tell me where I made an excuse for anyone. I give you reasons why Mexicans justify certain behaviors. This is not excuse making, this is logical historical understanding.
I also need you to consider that you have an agenda that colors the way you look at data, it is your need to turn it into opinion that is nonlogical.
Here is a quote for you
Quote:
These projects may also lose some of their most dedicated workers, Ginsburg said.
"All the studies show that immigrants come here to work," Ginsburg said, referring to both documented and undocumented immigrants. "There are lots of pundits who say they are here just to soak up welfare. But immigrants don't leave their families to come here and soak up benefits.
"With the two studies that I have done in Nevada, what we found is that labor force participation -- the percentage of a group that is actually working -- is higher for immigrants.
"A recent study published in the Wall Street Journal concluded that immigrants are great investments," Ginsburg said. "They are people who are working and they are drawing paychecks. When the paycheck from one member of the family is not enough, they have other people (in the household) who will work."
You will notice that Ginsberg states the percentage of immigrants working is higher than for citizens.
The Wall Street Journal (that left wing rag) states immigrants are great investments.
That you wish to consider them criminals does not detract from the fact that the vegetables you will eat to night were probably harvested by illegals
The meat you will have for dinner was probably slaughtered by illegals.
Some of your posts infer that I am making a statement as to right or wrong about any of this, don't do that to your self, I haven't stated right or wrong about either Polks War or illegal immigration.
Last edited by Jose Montara; 10-14-2007 at 07:03 PM..
One of the things (two?) that amazes me about Americans is that their knowledge of history is abyssmal, and that they do not understand that the past is prologue to the present. The historical interplay between Mexico and the United States has much to do with the current problem and is ignored at our peril. Just as the historical interplay between the United States and the Muslim world has much to do with the current problem and American ignoring of that interplay has created great peril for Americans.
Trivia; The Texicans fought for independence from Mexico because Mexico forbade slavery, and the Texicans wanted to keep their slaves, an addendum to that is "Yellow Rose of Texas" she was not a North European blonde, but a high yellow prostitute, high yellow meaning she was of mixed black and white blood.
Us Gringoes will take our chances; remember that we as a nation are slow to anger; just once provoked-------stand back.
As it stands: I 'see' Manifest Destiny coming to pass--------especially if Quebec leaves Canada which would strongly encourage the rest of the 'Great White North' to apply for admission to the Union.
I am not saying it is right or wrong; I am saying what may occur.
Yes; and many Hispanics died defending the Alamo as well.
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.
