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.
Per the U.S. Constitution, taking the Oath of Citizenship is not a requirement for staying in the U.S. As with most things in the Constitution, there is sound and visionary logic behind this reasoning. Becoming a U.S. Citizen is a voluntary act. It's among the many things that sets the U.S. apart from countries like Greece, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
As a Naturalized U.S. Citizen myself, I do know that one requirement is demonstrating reasonable command of English. Not to pick on you, but in English, punctuation is followed by a space. It makes writing easier to read. Just a friendly FYI.
true that coming to the United States you do not need to take a oath as a citizen,but when using public resources then it should be.Also,the constitution is about laws,and illegal immigration is breaking the law.
And my friend,again I do not claim to be the best at grammar,I post with "my style" as if we were sitting at a table face to face having a debate.My grammar may be flawed,but my debate is not.
I want to give a real example to those who think its uncaring not wanting to have open borders for anyone to come without regulations,to those who think "they just want a better life like you and me have",but without commiting to be a citizen.
When decided to sell my house in Miami I hired a painter to paint it.He was Honduran American,he spoke english and from the conversation I had with him he was proud of his cultural history yet proud to be American first,he entered here legally years ago.He charged me $1200,he did a professional job.
I could have gone to Home Depot,where on the road leading there are illegal immigrants who sit everyday waiting to be picked up for some work.I probably could have saved half of the money by hiring one of these guys,would the job have been done as well I dont know but...
The Honduran American painter that I hired,who is here legally and has a career,how much business and money has he lost to those who hired a illegal instead of him?In this situation his income has been compromised and undercut.
Kele, i was only referring to connections between northern Mexico and the U.S. southwest, which I HAVE studied. like I said, as far as most of Mexico goes, we are in agreement. And I am sure you probably know a lot more about the Indian tribes in most of Mexico than I do, so I will say no more about that.
As far as settlement in whats now the U.S. southwest by the Spanish goes, there have been plenty of histories written about that. The estimate of 100,000 people, mostly in what is now New Mexico and south Texas, is widespread, but it is just an estimate, and some disagree.
You are right that MOST of What is now the U.S. southwest had NOT been settled by the Spanish, it is true, but some parts of it were settled to a significant degree.
It is a historical FACT, however, that many towns, including some that are now large cities, were founded by Mexicans in what is now the U.S. Southwest when it was still part of Mexico. Santa Fe and Albuquerque New Mexico, San Antonio Texas, Los Angeles CA, Tucson AZ, are only a few that are now large cities and have ALLWAYS had significant Hispanic presence, Evan when they were a largely segregated minority. Los Angeles has always had Mexican neighborhoods, Evan if most Anglos don't know it. But of course it was nothing like it is now, and this fact is not a valid argument for mass immigration from Mexico, which HAS (along with other factors) made Los Angeles a pretty bad place to live for most people.
And most of the Spanish towns remained just that, small towns, plenty of which still exist.
Kele, i was only referring to connections between northern Mexico and the U.S. southwest, which I HAVE studied. like I said, as far as most of Mexico goes, we are in agreement. And I am sure you probably know a lot more about the Indian tribes in most of Mexico than I do, so I will say no more about that.
As far as settlement in whats now the U.S. southwest by the Spanish goes, there have been plenty of histories written about that. The estimate of 100,000 people, mostly in what is now New Mexico and south Texas, is widespread, but it is just an estimate, and some disagree.
You are right that MOST of What is now the U.S. southwest had NOT been settled by the Spanish, it is true, but some parts of it were settled to a significant degree.
It is a historical FACT, however, that many towns, including some that are now large cities, were founded by Mexicans in what is now the U.S. Southwest when it was still part of Mexico. Santa Fe and Albuquerque New Mexico, San Antonio Texas, Los Angeles CA, Tucson AZ, are only a few that are now large cities and have ALLWAYS had significant Hispanic presence, Evan when they were a largely segregated minority. Los Angeles has always had Mexican neighborhoods, Evan if most Anglos don't know it. But of course it was nothing like it is now, and this fact is not a valid argument for mass immigration from Mexico, which HAS (along with other factors) made Los Angeles a pretty bad place to live for most people.
And most of the Spanish towns remained just that, small towns, plenty of which still exist.
The majority of the small "Spanish towns" of which you speak were nothing more than stagecoach stops with no significant population. Most of the population was either contained within the mission settlements or on the rancheros. I don't disagree that many of the cities of today sprang up from these stagecoach stops, but they were not major settlements with flourishing populations. Even if we take your figure of 100,000 and spread that out over Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Texas...if you do the math, I think you'll get my point.
One more thing, California and Texas were the only territories whose ownership was settled by war. The war for California's territory ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in which Mexico was paid fifteen million dollars for the land, a nice little chunk of change in 1848. The other territories were obtained via the Gadsen Purchase, which was exactly what the name infers, a purchase of land, for the price of fifteen million dollars. As for Texas, Mexico asked for that little skirmish when they invited the Texans to move in and take care of the "Indian Problem," and then tried to boot them out once the Texans had subdued the warring tribes. Mexico started that war. Texas ended it. To the victor go the spoils.
I believe Mexico was clearly intimidated into giving up the rest of her northern territory, -after what happened, most countries would be. Maybe we can just agree to disagree about this one.
And You are only partly right about Spanish settlement in the region. As I said MOST of the region had almost NO or literally no Spanish settlement. However, large parts of what are now New Mexico and south central Colorado, were actually fairly well settled with many well developed small towns, most of which still exist. I have read a lot about the history of New Mexico.
Elsewhere, what you said is largely true, with a few minor exceptions.
I believe Mexico was clearly intimidated into giving up the rest of her northern territory, -after what happened, most countries would be.
Clearly intimidated?
You are aware that the Gadsen Purchase happened well before the Mexican-American war, correct? So what happened before that to intimidate Mexico into giving up the territories of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah?
That's why I have a very difficult time taking your information at face value. You tend to mix fact with fiction in order to arrive at your conclusions.
You are aware that the Gadsen Purchase happened well before the Mexican-American war, correct? So what happened before that to intimidate Mexico into giving up the territories of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah?
That's why I have a very difficult time taking your information at face value. You tend to mix fact with fiction in order to arrive at your conclusions.
Gadsden Purchase, 1853, was after the Mexican-American War, 1846-49.
Eaglecall, that's about the best damn post I've ever read in this thread.
Filmsniffer, I wholeheartedly agree. If I could've given Eaglecall about 100 rep points, I would have.
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.
