This country is my home

[José]

And one more clarification:

Mexicans lost their historical claim/right to live in their former northern provinces when the Mexican society as a whole lost the will to fight for them, grudgingly accepted the territorial loss and did nothing to take them back for 200 years.

The Treaty of Guadalupe itself (signed after the country was invaded by an foreign army of occupation) WOULD BE JUST A PIECE OF PAPER IF IT HADN'T BEEN RELUCTANTLY ACCEPTED BY THE MEXICAN SOCIETY.

Ultimately, what legitimized the landgrab of Mexico's nothern provinces was not a piece of paper signed under duress by Mexico's political leaders.

What legitimised America's posession of the Southwest was the acceptance of the landgrab by the MEXICAN SOCIETY.

 

[José]

Documents signed by political leaders MEAN NOTHING if they don't have the backing of their respective peoples.

Palestinian leaders can sign 500 documents ceding Western Palestine to Israel and Obama can do the same ceding Maine to Canada.

As long as the Palestinian and American people don't accept them they're worth a roll of toilet paper.

Fortunately for America, the mexican society did just that and as a consequence Mexicans lost their historical right to live in the Southwest, BUT IT'S UP TO AMERICA TO PATROL ITS BORDERS AND DEPORT ILLEGAL MEXICANS.

If America refuses to do so Mexicans will continue to use a "right" they actually lost almost 200 years ago.

 

[Bullfighter]

Just because they had the spirit of community to understand that the earth and its resources belong to the community and should not owned by ANY private person or family does not mean that the land was not stolen from them as a people

Biggest crock ever. Native American tribes were constantly fighting each other over territory before the white man came.

That was before they had a propaganda department working to clean up the savages images for school children of the 1970's. The 60's still had them shooting at John Wayne. Damn them redskins!

 

[Madeline]

I wonder if I'll be treated to every nightmare term of my childhood before this thread is over.

 

[Angelhair]

And one more clarification:

Mexicans lost their historical claim/right to live in their former northern provinces when the Mexican society as a whole lost the will to fight for them, grudgingly accepted the territorial loss and did nothing to take them back for 200 years.

The Treaty of Guadalupe itself (signed after the country was invaded by an foreign army of occupation) WOULD BE JUST A PIECE OF PAPER IF IT HADN'T BEEN RELUCTANTLY ACCEPTED BY THE MEXICAN SOCIETY.

Ultimately, what legitimized the landgrab of Mexico's nothern provinces was not a piece of paper signed under duress by Mexico's political leaders.

What legitimised America's posession of the Southwest was the acceptance of the landgrab by the MEXICAN SOCIETY.

And the best side won - whether by a 'landgrab' or sale. I wonder now if maybe today's mexican society would like to see the takeover of Mexico by the USA. I saw a survey whereby 47% of mexicans wish that the USA would.....

 

[nraforlife]

.......................And you having stated on "numerous occasions" (how numerous can they have been when you've only been here for about 14 days?), you have been wrong, wrong, wrong.

Read Article VIII in the Treaty itself:

Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

and your point would be?????? The article applied to a tiny number of Mex north of the Rio Grande in 1848, NOT worthless peasants coming up from Chapias last week,

ARTICLE VIII
Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.

Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.

In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.

 

[ConHog]

Documents signed by political leaders MEAN NOTHING if they don't have the backing of their respective peoples.

Palestinian leaders can sign 500 documents ceding Western Palestine to Israel and Obama can do the same ceding Maine to Canada.

As long as the Palestinian and American people don't accept them they're worth a roll of toilet paper.

Fortunately for America, the mexican society did just that and as a consequence Mexicans lost their historical right to live in the Southwest, BUT IT'S UP TO AMERICA TO PATROL ITS BORDERS AND DEPORT ILLEGAL MEXICANS.

If America refuses to do so Mexicans will continue to use a "right" they actually lost almost 200 years ago.

You could not be more wrong. IF the US Senate ratifies a treaty then the people have no say in the matter. The treaty is the official stance of the USG. That is part of living in a civilized society. We have laws of governance and we follow them. It would be a hell of a mess to try to get 350M people to agree every time we had a treaty question come up, wouldn't it? REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

 

[José]

Originally posted by ConHog
You could not be more wrong. IF the US Senate ratifies a treaty then the people have no say in the matter. The treaty is the official stance of the USG. That is part of living in a civilized society. We have laws of governance and we follow them. It would be a hell of a mess to try to get 350M people to agree every time we had a treaty question come up, wouldn't it? REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

Any US politician who tries and cede part of the american territory without the american people's consent would not be representing anyone but himself and would be rightfully overthrown by an impechment process or revolution.

If the mexican society had not grudgingly accepted the landgrab of its northern provinces carried out by the US they would still be fighting for them regardless of any PIECE OF PAPER signed by Santa Anna.

 

[Angelhair]

THIS COUNTRY IS MY HOME

I came home one day and a family had moved into my home. They had not been invited and was not welcome.
I called my law enforcement to remove them and was told they could not do it because I had to prove they were not invited and since they were already in my home I should let them stay as long as they pay me a reasonable amount of rent and I should let other member of the family move in also.
Since they were now living in my home, I must provide medical care, schooling for their children, feed them and I have to learn their language in order to better communicate with them.
While the mother was in my home, she gave birth to another child and I had to provide for that child as if it were my own. They were entitled to all the benefits of my children.
After the family had resided in my home for a length of time, they had the right o remain in my home, pay me a reasonable amount of rent, which part of it would be refunded at the end of each year.
They were free to grow and sell marijuana from my home to help support the family. Members of the family were in gangs and selling the drug and bringing crime into my home with shooting and stabbings. Being a threat to my family.
When they had established permanent residence in my home, they could send for their elderly parents and I would also have to provide for them even though they had not worked in my home to earn benefits of healthcare or allowance.
They have received more benefits in my home than they have contributed to the running of my home.
As long as they are not caught committing crimes in my home and I have to let them stay indefinitely.
I have been seriously considering moving out of my home and letting them have it, since my home have bee over run by other member of the family moving in.
They had taken my job, my wife’s jobs and part-time jobs of my children and still have not contributed to the well being of my home.

THIS COUNTRY IS MY HOME - Topix

added link. ~elvis

I'm not unsympathetic. Especially to any US citizen living in the Southwest. Must be positively terrifying, this rise in crime -- especially kidnappings. But LilOlLady...where would you emigrate TO that has no such problem?

What do we tell Mexicans and citizens of other nations fleeing their own drug-crazed violence and poverty and corruption? Shouldn't we be addressing the CAUSES of illegal immigration in the nations these folks are fleeing?

You might be sympathetic.....but you really don't understand.....unless you live here. Why do I know that? Because of your question as to where one would migrate to that 'has no such problem'.....say what????

 

[ConHog]

Originally posted by ConHog
You could not be more wrong. IF the US Senate ratifies a treaty then the people have no say in the matter. The treaty is the official stance of the USG. That is part of living in a civilized society. We have laws of governance and we follow them. It would be a hell of a mess to try to get 350M people to agree every time we had a treaty question come up, wouldn't it? REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

Any US politician who tries and cede part of the american territory without the american people's consent would not be representing anyone but himself and would be rightfully overthrown by an impechment process or revolution.

If the mexican society had not grudgingly accepted the landgrab of its northern provinces carried out by the US they would still be fighting for them regardless of any PIECE OF PAPER signed by Santa Anna.

blah blah blah, english motherfucker, do you speak it? Not judging by that post.

 

[Angelhair]

'What do we tell Mexicans and citizens of other nations fleeing their own drug-crazed violence and poverty and corruption? Shouldn't we be addressing the CAUSES of illegal immigration in the nations these folks are fleeing?'

I would tell them to stay put and fight for and sacrifice for what is right. I would tell them to at least try to change things in their country and I would start by legislating laws and instilling respect for them. I would tell the rich to take more interest in the poor and the disadvantage and to use their money and influence to help bring about much needed changes.
The causes of illegal immigration are already known. It's the solutions and the will to bring about change that are lacking.