Border Problems: Are the "original" Americans being short changed? (middle east, birth)
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 recently spent an afternoon with two of my friends and former co-workers recently retired from the INS. Both of these men became INS deportation officers coming out of the United States Border Patrol which is quite customary. I served many years in the 80 and 90 as an interpreter-translator for the DoJ and mostly in the INS. I admit I did very little work on the Southern Border. My job was mainly with the Cuban Marielitos who came in the boat-lift of 1980. But illegal immigration has been a priority with the INS for three decades but no one has paid any real attention to it expect in the last five years and now it may be too late to really fix the situation. That is the back ground. Now to the subject that was posed by my friends. I'll play a little "devil's advocate" here:
It does not surprise any one that the Mexican government is encouraging their "people" to leave either legally or illegally. Here is why. The nation of Mexico is 90% pure Amerindian and Mestizo (the term Mestizo is not simply another word for Hispanic. It really means anyone who is of mixed (mestizado) blood of indigenous American and mainly European blood. Anthony Quinn, the famous actor, often referred to himself as a Mestizo of Irish and Indian blood.)
Mexico as a nation however is run by the 9% that is European (Fox, Portillo etc). These people have been mistreating, massacring and torturing the indigenous population of the nation for 500 years. Now they have found a new and more humane way to lessen the number of Amerindians within their national boundries...send them to the US. As partial proof of this take a look at the typical illegal or even legal Mexican in the US. Now compare this face to that of those who run the Mexican Government.
Euro - Mexican:
This is one of the problems we face on the southern border and it is a difficult one to overcome. I can tell you some real horror stories about "Gachupines (Euro-Mexicans), Mestizos and pure "Indians". Racism is an everyday fact and a part of life in Mexico just as it is here.The Mexican ruling class could care less if these people left Mexico. They undoubtedly wish the people in the state of "Chiapas" would leave because the problems going on there are nothing more than Indian uprisings and not much about labor equality.
But here is the kicker in the problem and one that is difficult to solve. There are 26 different Amerindian tribes who live not just at the border of Mexico and The USA but they live on both sides if that border. In other words the border has cut their nations in half. This problem was resolved 160 years ago as a part of the "Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo". Which gave these indigenous people free passage to either side of the border. In fact many of these tribes are simply land-locked nation between Mexico and The US. Breaking the Treaty of Hidalgo is not an option because too many other things are tied to it that benefit the US. Here are some of the major Indian "Nations" who fit into the treaty. Kickapoo, Kumeyaay, Tohono O’odham, Pasqua Yaqui, Black Seminoles, Tiguas. Yaqui, Cocopah, Mescalero, Luiseno, Cupeno, Cahuilla and on and on. All of these people have interest and lands on both sides of the border. Many are being inundated by illegals not only from other areas of Mexico but Central America as well. This is very touchy problem to deal with and we do not have an exact count of the populations involved in these "free border crossing" rights. It is anywhere from 300,000 to possibly three quarters of a million people. Both Americans and many Mexicans wish these people would just go away. Unfortunately they have the right to be where they are and both Mexicans and Americans agreed on that right long ago. Difficult problem is it not?
To uphold our end of the treaty of Hildago we will allow those who fall under the treaty to cross at a gate in the fence we build. They need to petition their government to establish a secure way to ID them as one of the native beneficiaries of the treaty
The harsh reality is many ethnic groups have been severed by artificial borders---------not just the indigenous peoples here in the New World.
Like a stew: once the basic ingredients have been mixed together (Mestizos, Mulattoes, etc), they cannot be taken back apart.
All through history; stronger groups have subjugated the weaker.
The latter have a choice: either adopt the ways of the stronger (Irish did so in recent years embracing many aspects of the 'hated' English'--------which paid off handsomely for Ireland on many levels) or, be left to wither on the vine (most Islamic nations--------cut off their oil incomes and the Middle East would dry up and blow away).
To uphold our end of the treaty of Hildago we will allow those who fall under the treaty to cross at a gate in the fence we build. They need to petition their government to establish a secure way to ID them as one of the native beneficiaries of the treaty
We have to secure the border
But the question then arises: Who is their legal and representative government? This is not stated in the Treaty of Hidalgo. Are we responsible, is Mexico responsible or are these "nations" autonomous entities who can make their own laws and decisions concerning this and the borders both north and south must skirt their nation and begin above or below their nations as the case maybe.
AB says - this has happened throughout history.
Tom9 says that AB is correct but that does not make it right. It is not a question of just behavior but rather one of power. More cases even are those of the Basque people in France and Spain or the Catalans in the same situation. In all cases there have been armed conflicts, terrorist activities as well as separatist movements. Usually we refuse the comparison with other nations and we must also do that here IMO. The situation and its ramifications are different and taking place at a different time in history.
"
Tom9.....as the spouse of one of these "original people" ('We didn't cross the border..the border crossed US')...I will agree that it IS a thorny problem. You correctly named MANY "nations" that are affected. (although the "black Seminoles" elude me, since their land is in Florida (or Oklahoma?)...and I can't imagine their connection w/Mexico)...but I'll defer to you on that.
But what to do about "partial members" of any specific tribe..(whether having partial non-Indian ancestry, or even partial "other-Indian" ancestry, as often happens)..OR, as also often happens, what to do about the random illegals, from "who-knows-where", who show up practially every time a Casino opens, hoping to 'cash in' on the gravy train? It would be a total nightmare in conflicting claims and counter-claims.
Frankly, I can't imagine how this would even come CLOSE to being administered to ANYONE'S satisfaction..and. "off the record", I can assure you that my spouse has expressed VERY little interest in any move toward going back to "the old days". Much of the "romance" associated with the "free and easy and unfettered" life once enjoyed by the "noble red man" is largely the product the good intentions of well-meaning, but misguided, 'do-gooders'. I can assure you that a NUMBER of 'red people' are more than happy to be part of a modern, secular, legally-based society, and not a 'tribe' living in their own narrow world. I KNOW this will offend a few who will insist "they can't POSSIBLY mean that", but some, indeed, do. They, like MOST of us, have been able to make the psychological shift neccessary in moving from a small 'tribe' of related people, to a huge, world-class nation. And while we're ALL proud of our ethnicity, most of us realize that at some point, ethnic 'rights' must give way to societal unity....and this idea of many mini-'nations', each with its own agreement with TWO countries, sound to me more like the tiny native 'enclaves' of South Africa in the last days of apartheid, than a way to operate a modern, first-world nation.
As I've often said, no one really KNOWS if its possible to run a liberal, prosperous multiracial society, AND have equal rights for all, AND have freedom for all, AND have prosperity...because no one's ever TRIED before. We're still in the 'experimental stage, but these 'separate sovereign nations' sound to me like a 'minus', not a 'plus'....
Tom9.....as the spouse of one of these "original people" ('We didn't cross the border..the border crossed US')...I will agree that it IS a thorny problem. You correctly named MANY "nations" that are affected. (although the "black Seminoles" elude me, since their land is in Florida (or Oklahoma?)...and I can't imagine their connection w/Mexico)...but I'll defer to you on that.
But what to do about "partial members" of any specific tribe..(whether having partial non-Indian ancestry, or even partial "other-Indian" ancestry, as often happens)..OR, as also often happens, what to do about the random illegals, from "who-knows-where", who show up practially every time a Casino opens, hoping to 'cash in' on the gravy train? It would be a total nightmare in conflicting claims and counter-claims.
Frankly, I can't imagine how this would even come CLOSE to being administered to ANYONE'S satisfaction..and. "off the record", I can assure you that my spouse has expressed VERY little interest in any move toward going back to "the old days". Much of the "romance" associated with the "free and easy and unfettered" life once enjoyed by the "noble red man" is largely the product the good intentions of well-meaning, but misguided, 'do-gooders'. I can assure you that a NUMBER of 'red people' are more than happy to be part of a modern, secular, legally-based society, and not a 'tribe' living in their own narrow world. I KNOW this will offend a few who will insist "they can't POSSIBLY mean that", but some, indeed, do. They, like MOST of us, have been able to make the psychological shift neccessary in moving from a small 'tribe' of related people, to a huge, world-class nation. And while we're ALL proud of our ethnicity, most of us realize that at some point, ethnic 'rights' must give way to societal unity....and this idea of many mini-'nations', each with its own agreement with TWO countries, sound to me more like the tiny native 'enclaves' of South Africa in the last days of apartheid, than a way to operate a modern, first-world nation.
As I've often said, no one really KNOWS if its possible to run a liberal, prosperous multiracial society, AND have equal rights for all, AND have freedom for all, AND have prosperity...because no one's ever TRIED before. We're still in the 'experimental stage, but these 'separate sovereign nations' sound to me like a 'minus', not a 'plus'....
In general I agree with what you have said but many of these people are between two rivers on this issue. While they want to be part of mainstream American or Mexican society they still believe that they won't really be allowed to because of their ethnicity. There is also the fact that many of these people are, by modern society's standards, not equipped to take part. There is also an anger among these so called "Indians" which is hard to erase because so little time has passed since they were considered "non-citizens". In the US, and correct me if I am wrong, these people were only recognized as part of American society since 1924, I believe. In Mexico I doubt if they have ever officially been recognized. We ourselves (Americans from all countries in the New World) have done our damnedest to promote the "noble savage" image and now we see that we have to reverse that.
We also need to lock at some of these other places where this phenomena has occurred. In Spain and southern France the Basque problem has spawned terrorism by the ETA which still finds sympathy for its cause among many Basques on both sides of the border. An independent Basque country would be a disaster for the economically because all the industry in that area would move away. That has already happened in Spain because of the decades of terrorism. In the Northeast of Spain and the Southeast of France the Catalonian movement gave rise to G.R.A.P.O. during the 60, 70, 80 and the group. although much reduced in numbers. is still somewhat active. The same with the Celtic French in the north, And what we know most of the IRA. We don't want to have this happen here. The likelihood of it coming to pass is fairly remote but it is still a possibility that we and the Mexicans would be better off in avoiding all together.
You point out another problem that must be dealt with and that is "who belongs to which tribes or nations" and who is trying to take advantage of their Amerindian heritage to better their own lot by less than honorable means, (ie) People from outside these tribal zones who are attempting to pass themselves off as people who they are not. Simply being Amerindian does not give them rights to cross the border or live on a reservation if they are not from that tribe. Big problem because no one thought these people were important enough to keep any kinds of records on. The result is that this is just another added problem to the sieve that the border is in relation to indiginous people. No easy way out of this and the question is how important will people make this issue in the future.Who knows?
In general I agree with what you have said but many of these people are between two rivers on this issue. While they want to be part of mainstream American or Mexican society they still believe that they won't really be allowed to because of their ethnicity. There is also the fact that many of these people are, by modern society's standards, not equipped to take part. There is also an anger among these so called "Indians" which is hard to erase because so little time has passed since they were considered "non-citizens". In the US, and correct me if I am wrong, these people were only recognized as part of American society since 1924, I believe. In Mexico I doubt if they have ever officially been recognized. We ourselves (Americans from all countries in the New World) have done our damnedest to promote the "noble savage" image and now we see that we have to reverse that.
We also need to lock at some of these other places where this phenomena has occurred. In Spain and southern France the Basque problem has spawned terrorism by the ETA which still finds sympathy for its cause among many Basques on both sides of the border. An independent Basque country would be a disaster for the economically because all the industry in that area would move away. That has already happened in Spain because of the decades of terrorism. In the Northeast of Spain and the Southeast of France the Catalonian movement gave rise to G.R.A.P.O. during the 60, 70, 80 and the group. although much reduced in numbers. is still somewhat active. The same with the Celtic French in the north, And what we know most of the IRA. We don't want to have this happen here. The likelihood of it coming to pass is fairly remote but it is still a possibility that we and the Mexicans would be better off in avoiding all together.
You point out another problem that must be dealt with and that is "who belongs to which tribes or nations" and who is trying to take advantage of their Amerindian heritage to better their own lot by less than honorable means, (ie) People from outside these tribal zones who are attempting to pass themselves off as people who they are not. Simply being Amerindian does not give them rights to cross the border or live on a reservation if they are not from that tribe. Big problem because no one thought these people were important enough to keep any kinds of records on. The result is that this is just another added problem to the sieve that the border is in relation to indiginous people. No easy way out of this and the question is how important will people make this issue in the future.Who knows?
Points well made. "Indigenous" group success stories in recent years include "Nunavut" (for all practical purposes, a HUGE semi-autonomous Inuit-run territory of Canada)..."Nunavik" (Inuit-administered autonomous region in remote northern Quebec)....and "Kalaallit Nunaat" (Greenland), now approaching practical independence from Denmark. Yet these are rare places, far from the 'mainstream' of the world, with TINY populations spread over enormous distances. It's questionable whether these could be held up as practical examples for the 'everyday world'.
Interesting subject...FEW answers !! Thanks for your thoughts..
I have to chuckle at today EU Euros------they are quite affluent with below replacement level birthrates for the most part.
The above situations all but killed the IRA in Ireland-------well off people typically have little stomach for civil war-------they have way too much to lose.
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.
