Border and immigration crisis.

mickeyrat

I wonder what the Mexican governments stance is on undocumented persons traveling through Mexico.

Godfather.

and for the people that keep saying california was taken from mexican people......very interesting read.

Godfather.

Some Chicano activists will allege that the U.S. "stole" the Southwest, including California, from Mexico. A reasonable look at the history gives lie to these assertions.

California statehood really began with the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed by the U.S. and Mexico. By this act, America increased its territory by two-thirds, including California and the land of six other Southwestern states, while Mexico was cut in half. In the history of our two countries, this surprisingly little-known treaty is a staggering event.

Despite the huge amount of territory involved in the treaty, only about 80,000 Mexicans lived in the whole Southwest. Furthermore, Mexico exercised little control over the territory. It was a country in turmoil. From 1821, the end of Spanish rule, through 1847, Mexico endured 50 military regimes, five constitutional conventions, three constitutions and most of the 11 different terms of leadership under the tragic president and general, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

In addition to the political instability, the racial and ethnic cleavages in the Mexico of this era are important to understand. When Santa Anna ended his last term in 1854, it marked the end of the rule of the conquistadors' descendants, those of Spanish descent born in what was then called New Spain. Called criollos, this group ruled Mexico after the overthrow of Spain in 1821. Prior to that, from 1521, Spaniards ruled directly under the authority of the crown.

The Spanish language and Catholic faith, perpetuated by the Spaniards and criollos, prevailed by conquest over the various Indian dialects and religions. The revolution in Mexico that began in 1810 was against Spain. It was led by the criollos with strong support from the Indians and the growing numbers of mestizos, those Mexicans of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry. Their battle cry was "Death to the Spaniards! Long live the Virgin of Guadalupe!" It was not "Yankee go home!" nor an Aztec war cry.

The immediate cause for the Mexican-American War was a $3 million debt to America for damages done by Mexicans to Americans. The government of Mexico had agreed to pay, but was repeatedly in default. The American annexation of Texas in 1845, independent of Mexico since 1836, and the related Texas border disputes, were additional causes. But perhaps the real motivator was America's desire for California. The Mexican government spurned a cash offer of $25 million. President James Polk and others believed that if the U.S. did not acquire California, Great Britain or others might, since Mexico was unable to govern it.

Mexico drew first blood in an attack on American troops in disputed territory in Texas and the war was on. Less than two years later, American troops entered Mexico City and the treaty was signed. Despite winning the war, America paid $18 million for the territory. The U.S. also lost 13,000 lives, largely due to disease. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Our constitutional democracy, the rule of law, private property rights, freedom of religion, and the other characteristics of American government have been enormously appealing to our neighbors to the South. Over the past 150 years, the moral and legal authority of the U.S. to govern the acquired territory is, by any reasonable measure, unassailable. The treaty was, on balance, a good one for all concerned. Californians should be proud of their history and the creation of a place that so many have found so attractive.

Examiner contributor Michael Warder is vice- president of the Claremont Institute, a think-tank based in Claremont, California.<

Godfather.

EarlWelsh said:

Godfather. said:

unsung said:

TSA is allowing illegal aliens on commercial flights, to be resettled around the country, without identification.

it must be around the tomoato farms.......


Godfather.

What the fuck is a tomoato? Sounds delicious, Godfather.

The Daisy.

I read this again this morning.......crap I'm laughing again !!!!!

Godfather.

mickeyrat

Huh, so we entered into apeace treaty with one of the conquistador descendants for california and the rest of the southwest as a condition of surrender during war....

Starts out like was a peaceful negotiation but .........the rest is history.

chadwick

i like illegals

chadwick

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Qml0ZEgVSY8/S0SwV3iZQNI/AAAAAAAAATo/9UyZ91d2oCo/s1600/Plymouth-Rock-Comic.jpg


damn funny

callen

chadwick said:

i like illegals

Very profound Chadwick.

Have had lots if both personal as well as business dealings with illegals and they are the most friendly polite family values humans I've ever met.

chadwick

callen,

same here. they are just wonderful & work hard. they're very good people & we've all chipped in & fed some of them. i have no problem at all w/ giving a hoot about a human being who is struggling & trying, trying & struggling.

good to go!

rgambs

Godfather. said:

and for the people that keep saying california was taken from mexican people......very interesting read.

Godfather.

Some Chicano activists will allege that the U.S. "stole" the Southwest, including California, from Mexico. A reasonable look at the history gives lie to these assertions.

California statehood really began with the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed by the U.S. and Mexico. By this act, America increased its territory by two-thirds, including California and the land of six other Southwestern states, while Mexico was cut in half. In the history of our two countries, this surprisingly little-known treaty is a staggering event.

Despite the huge amount of territory involved in the treaty, only about 80,000 Mexicans lived in the whole Southwest. Furthermore, Mexico exercised little control over the territory. It was a country in turmoil. From 1821, the end of Spanish rule, through 1847, Mexico endured 50 military regimes, five constitutional conventions, three constitutions and most of the 11 different terms of leadership under the tragic president and general, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

In addition to the political instability, the racial and ethnic cleavages in the Mexico of this era are important to understand. When Santa Anna ended his last term in 1854, it marked the end of the rule of the conquistadors' descendants, those of Spanish descent born in what was then called New Spain. Called criollos, this group ruled Mexico after the overthrow of Spain in 1821. Prior to that, from 1521, Spaniards ruled directly under the authority of the crown.

The Spanish language and Catholic faith, perpetuated by the Spaniards and criollos, prevailed by conquest over the various Indian dialects and religions. The revolution in Mexico that began in 1810 was against Spain. It was led by the criollos with strong support from the Indians and the growing numbers of mestizos, those Mexicans of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry. Their battle cry was "Death to the Spaniards! Long live the Virgin of Guadalupe!" It was not "Yankee go home!" nor an Aztec war cry.

The immediate cause for the Mexican-American War was a $3 million debt to America for damages done by Mexicans to Americans. The government of Mexico had agreed to pay, but was repeatedly in default. The American annexation of Texas in 1845, independent of Mexico since 1836, and the related Texas border disputes, were additional causes. But perhaps the real motivator was America's desire for California. The Mexican government spurned a cash offer of $25 million. President James Polk and others believed that if the U.S. did not acquire California, Great Britain or others might, since Mexico was unable to govern it.

Mexico drew first blood in an attack on American troops in disputed territory in Texas and the war was on. Less than two years later, American troops entered Mexico City and the treaty was signed. Despite winning the war, America paid $18 million for the territory. The U.S. also lost 13,000 lives, largely due to disease. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Our constitutional democracy, the rule of law, private property rights, freedom of religion, and the other characteristics of American government have been enormously appealing to our neighbors to the South. Over the past 150 years, the moral and legal authority of the U.S. to govern the acquired territory is, by any reasonable measure, unassailable. The treaty was, on balance, a good one for all concerned. Californians should be proud of their history and the creation of a place that so many have found so attractive.

Examiner contributor Michael Warder is vice- president of the Claremont Institute, a think-tank based in Claremont, California.<

rgambs

damn, lost my text! Short version: this is no journalistic article, its a puff piece. Most of the facts are right but his take on them is laughably naive. 16million for some of the most fertile land on the planet? And then we damn the Colorado and dry up Baja and its a "good deal" for mexico? And his take on the war is disgusting! We started that war because we wanted the land, and any casualties on our side are our own doing as a result.

chadwick

yeah that is some rich fucking piece

Godfather.

rgambs said:

damn, lost my text! Short version: this is no journalistic article, its a puff piece. Most of the facts are right but his take on them is laughably naive. 16million for some of the most fertile land on the planet? And then we damn the Colorado and dry up Baja and its a "good deal" for mexico? And his take on the war is disgusting! We started that war because we wanted the land, and any casualties on our side are our own doing as a result.

$16 million in the mid 1800's was a grip of cash, non the less it was paid for and a deal was made in good faith if this generation knows it or likes does not matter.

Godfather.

unsung

mickeyrat said:

I wonder what the Mexican governments stance is on undocumented persons traveling through Mexico.

Apparently as long as they are moving through they don't have a problem with it. Afterall it's our problem, not theirs.

gimmesometruth27

interesting. a handful of people in a nation built by immigrants wants no more immigrants. merica, fuck yeah!!!

unsung

That's really laughable, doesn't anyone understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration besides me?

mickeyrat

Documented and undocumented. Yes there is a difference. In civil law.

What of those who overstay a visa and remain?
What of them?

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

Documented and undocumented. Yes there is a difference. In civil law.

What of those who overstay a visa and remain?
What of them?

oh they gotta get out, yo.

gimmesometruth27

unsung said:

That's really laughable, doesn't anyone understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration besides me?

what is your solution?

put children on boats and let them float back home?

obama asked for 3 billion to handle the situation as it is currently.

the senate has passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. obama will sign it, boehner will not bring it up for a vote.

what do you want obama to do?

nothing? or use his executive power to do what he can legally?

sometimes i think people want nothing to change because if it changed then they would not have anything to complain about.

boehner can fix this situation. he chooses not to, because he had has the crap scared out of him by cantor's loss. so what does he do?? he sues the president because the president failed to implement a law that boehner voted to repeal over 50 times.

you want to blame somebody for nothing being done, blame the house gop.

primussucks

gimmesometruth27 said:

yes. it was unconstitutional.

But when has the constitution mattered at all lately?

unsung

gimmesometruth27 said:

unsung said:

That's really laughable, doesn't anyone understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration besides me?

what is your solution?

put children on boats and let them float back home?

obama asked for 3 billion to handle the situation as it is currently.

the senate has passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. obama will sign it, boehner will not bring it up for a vote.

what do you want obama to do?

nothing? or use his executive power to do what he can legally?

sometimes i think people want nothing to change because if it changed then they would not have anything to complain about.

boehner can fix this situation. he chooses not to, because he had has the crap scared out of him by cantor's loss. so what does he do?? he sues the president because the president failed to implement a law that boehner voted to repeal over 50 times.

you want to blame somebody for nothing being done, blame the house gop.

I want the laws followed that we have.