By
James Foxcurran
October 8, 2007
College campuses most often use the negative terms "imperialism" and "colonialism" to describe European and American history. Meanwhile, in 21st century North America, our southern neighbor is being granted moral legitimacy for the same behavior.
Mexican immigrants are now present in the Southwestern United States with a population percentage they have never enjoyed at any other time in history.
While defendants are saying it's just the natural process of the Mexicans moving back onto land that really belongs to them and that the Hollywood demonstrations should be a source of conventional wisdom, history is being overlooked.
Mexico had barely colonized most of the Southwestern United States when it became U.S. territory in 1848. Spain, then Mexico, merely held imperial sway over Indian territories.
In 1835, Texas had about 3,500 Spanish-speaking residents, compared with almost 30,000 Anglo-American settlers, according to Ray Allen Billington, in his book The Far Western Frontier: 1830-1860.
In California, there were about 4,000 to 7,000 Spanish-speaking residents in the 1840s. The vast majority of the population was still Indian. Scattered missions, pueblos and presidios represented most of the Mexican presence in the area, which is why it was so easy for the United States to seize the area during the Mexican-American war, according to "History of French America" by Gilles Harvard and Cecile Vidal.
Meanwhile, in 1803, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, there were 40,000 to 50,000 French-speaking residents west of the Mississippi River between Missouri and Washington state.
This number tripled to quadrupled by 1850. However, there is no modern political constituency for this group, therefore the story is apparently not worth telling.
The only state that has always had a majority Spanish-speaking population is New Mexico, with 44,000 Spanish-speaking residents in 1830. Since the Spanish were the first to explore the Southwest, their geographic terms are on the map every place they stopped to relieve themselves.
These vestiges are often used to justify the massive Mexican colonization currently unfolding, in spite of the fact that it is actually the first wave of Mexican colonization, not the second.
History is often revised to reflect the current situation rather than the facts. This is exactly what is happening with the American Southwest and the inflation of Mexican claims to the land there.
This historical revisionism clearly has a political motivation to justify and legitimize the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants and to discredit efforts to respect our border and immigration laws.
As former Rep. J.D. (R-Ariz.) Hayworth said in the film Border Wars, "The Left sees cheap votes, and the Right sees cheap labor, so you have the perfect storm."
While one certainly can't stereotype all persons of Mexican immigrants, there is a distinction between Mexican-American families who have citizenship and roots in the United States, and an illegal alien of a foreign nation who is violating and evading federal laws.
While illegal immigration is unacceptable, it is important to have sympathy for the migrants.
The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, working with the border patrol is serving a heroic function that is saving Mexican and American lives in large quantities. I don't see any Leftists sweating in the Arizona desert, saving illegal Mexican migrants from dying of dehydration and starvation.
The only people that have decisively responded to this human rights tragedy are the groups that Leftists despise and routinely slander.
Mexicans are gaining considerable political power and forcing politicians of both parties to shy away from defending the border and enforcing immigration laws.
A Zogby's poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico."
This was on display last year with the massive marches of Mexican citizens waving Mexican flags in American cities. If this isn't blatant colonization, with ulterior imperialist motives, I don't know what is.
[Reach contributing writer
James Foxcurran at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
31 Comments
#1 Bobby
on October 8, 2007 at 12:56 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
I haver noticed that more and more of the reconqistas and 5th columnists, running around in the United States causing trouble, are saying certain American states belong to Mexico,especially now that the--roads are paved,water aquaducts bring in water from hundreds of miles away, and modern Univresities and schools are all set up. Most Mexicans did not have a thing to do with all of this, they weren't even here.
#2 Allan S
on October 8, 2007 at 1:13 p.m.(Yorba Linda, CA | Unverified Name)
If prior claim still meant anything after settling the outcome of a war, the British could claim the eaxstern States because they used to own them, and only lost them in a war that they
didn't want to fight. Wars, more than anything else settle
ownership of land in the real world. By any normal reading of history, what the Mexican people are doing constitutes an
"occupation of teritorry for their own national purposes.
It is at least a "Cold War"!
#3 A Reader
on October 9, 2007 at 10:36 a.m.(Yorba Linda, CA | Unverified Name)
Finally, a truthful article about history of Mexicans in (what is known now as) the American Southwest.
I would add one more observation to the above analysis.
Spain (and later Mexico) acquired its land by military conquest followed by autocratic rule. It was a classic example of conquest, with obvious imperialist motivations. (Recall that the first Mexican independent state was named Mexican Empire.) And in the case of the Southwest, the conquest was followed by exploitation with no or little development of land and infrastructure. That led to low living standards and relative lack of liberty among the residents of the conquered areas, which sprung several revolutions against Mexican rule there.
Unlike Spain (and later Mexico), the U.S. was mainly expanding by settlements on undeveloped (and mostly uninhabited) land and by spreading principles of liberty and truly representative government. This led to economic prosperity and plentiful liberties among the residents of the incorporated areas.
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to refer to Spanish/Mexican expansion in 18th and 19th century as military conquest while American expansion during that time should be characterized as liberation.
Some more details about legal and factual bases (or a lack thereof) for Mexican irredentist claims may be found here:
http://geocities.com/readerswrite/com...
#4 Bobby
on October 9, 2007 at 1:22 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
I have to make just one more comment. I can't help it. As to Mexicos claim on U.S. soil, are they kidding? They can't even run their own backward, corrupt, drug infested nation, what will having another piece of land do for them? It will just become like the rest of it. Who is kidding who here?
#5 Bobby
on October 9, 2007 at 1:22 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
I have to make just one more comment. I can't help it. As to Mexicos claim on U.S. soil, are they kidding? They can't even run their own backward, corrupt, drug infested nation, what will having another piece of land do for them? It will just become like the rest of it. Who is kidding who here?
#6 Chava
on October 9, 2007 at 10:20 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I'd hate to say it, but if what you students are reporting as 'correct' is true, than the UW wasted a whole bunch of time and resources in recruiting professors to teach Chicano Studies courses and other non-Latino professors who subscribe to the contrary. Maybe the writer and the commentors should have discussions with some of these professors (such as Erasmo Gamboa) who would be glad to argue otherwise. Latinos, specifically Mexicans, have always existed, perhaps not in total majority, in approximately what is now Oregon in the north (and in parts Washington) to what is now Texas to the east. The idea that Mexicans were never here just perpetuates the borderline racist ideas created in the American intervention in Mexico of 1846-1848 (AKA Mexican-American war). Why else would there be names in Washington such as the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Anacortés, and in Oregon such as La Grande (not to mention most if not all of the SW)?
I'm surprised as to how much blatant ignorance, or (to use a stereotype), laziness there is in not willing to get all of the facts before reporting something. Though it is an opinion piece, it should not be the reason for giving a 'rant' without much factual evidence to support it. The only main source cited in the article is that of a Republican representative and a random seagull plop reference to a 'book'. Go figure?
#7 Sisquoc
on October 9, 2007 at 11:42 p.m.(Canyon Country, CA | Unverified Name)
On one hand, Mexicans often portray themselves as part of an "indigenous civilization" from whom the U.S. stole its territory. On the other hand, there was no indigenous civilization. That was one major reason Cortez and Pizarro were able to so quickly take control when they arrived in the 16th century. There were nearly as many indigenous people who allied with them, or stood aside, as who actively opposed them.
It's also one reason why Mexico, despite their promises to the contrary, didn't return the former land of the American Indians of the Southwest to those Indians after their war of independence against Spain. They gave it to wealthy and influential countrymen who were then able to hold the Indians essentially in feudal servitude until the Mexican-American War. This isn't to say that the Americans treated the Indians in any acceptable way, but simply that this "indigenous" claim that Mexicans make is basically founded on a crock of New Age revisionism.
#8 Cameron Newland
on October 10, 2007 at 12:16 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
There is some really poor logic in your article. Take the following:
"The only state that has always had a majority Spanish-speaking population is New Mexico, with 44,000 Spanish-speaking residents in 1830. Since the Spanish were the first to explore the Southwest, their geographic terms are on the map every place they stopped to relieve themselves. These vestiges are often used to justify the massive Mexican colonization currently unfolding, in spite of the fact that it is actually the first wave of Mexican colonization, not the second."
The first problem here is nomenclature: in 1830, the residents of Nuevo Mexico were not just "Spanish-speaking", they had been citizens of Mexico since 1921. It's important to point this out, because you seem to you refer to the Spanish and Mexicans as separate in the sentences that I've quoted. The current wave of Mexican immigration is surely not the first, and you yourself seem to admit this in the first quoted sentence when you reference their large presence in Nuevo Mexico pre-secession.
Also, the way you go about making your point here is reminding me of Bill O'Reilly. My reasoning is that good writers have a point and cite others who help make the point for them, and in the greater scheme of things help illustrate something to the reader that might not have been so obvious. The reason that I'm instead comparing you to Bill O'Reilly is that he really doesn't care about using logic to illustrate a point, he finds a few choice quotes or data points (as I believe you have done) that serve to illustrate his point while framing the issue as indisputable fact, almost as if he's telling you how to think. The place where you were most O'Reilly-esque in framing the issue is when you wrote "in spite of the fact that it is actually the first wave of Mexican colonization, not the second." Words like "it is actually" and "in spite of the FACT" (emphasis added) seem to frame the issue in favor of your finding, which, ironically (and in true O'Reilly fashion), doesn't follow from the facts you've brought up.
I do, however, appreciate the point you brought up at the end, about the Zogby poll, and the comparison between Imperialists and Mexican marchers. Clever point indeed.
#9 Bobby
on October 10, 2007 at 1:14 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
Sorry Chava, the names you mention are from the Spanish. In the treaty involving the independence of Mexico from Spain, Spain never recognized Mexico's claim to Alta California, the region that so much of the reconquistas are always claiming is Mexicos. Also, what good would it do Mexico to have another piece of land, it will just turn into the same corrupt, crime ridden place that the rest of it is. No?
#10 Bobby
on October 10, 2007 at 1:16 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
Sisquoc, how utterly true your report is. Finally someone tells it like it WAS.
#11 Chava
on October 10, 2007 at 2:36 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Bobby, so what you are saying is that Mexicans and Spanish are two different things? Mexico was Spain and after its independence in 1821 all Spain had became Mexico's. I don't see where you are going with making such a ridiculous dichotomy. Even after Mexico lost all its land north of the Rio Grande, the US still contracted the foreign nationals (those who decided to stay after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 and were supposed to be incorporated into the US as CITIZENS) as cheap labor to run infrastructures such as stoop labor, mule packers to fund the growing mining business (especially in California with the Gold Rush), and the expansion West and North into Oregon and Washington that without mule packers would have taken many more years and cost a lot more. The truth is, the US likes to take advantage of those seen as inferior and necessary to keep it running without acknowledging their achievements. That is the problem with public schools, and to a more certain extent private schools: everything taught is biased and skewed to a certain goal or perspective needed to keep the status quo. In actuality, during the early to mid 20th century, the US contracted hundreds of thousands of temporary workers, under the Bracero Program, to do the jobs nobody wanted to (and during WWII, that no one could do because everyone was in the war) and then just send them back. This country has had a long history of manipulating history so that things that it has done wrong will not damage its 'reputable' reputation. As we all know, history is written by the victor and no one can be the US: THE WORLD POLICE.
It is for that exact reason that I refuse to use 'Hispanics' because it has the connotation that all Latin Americans have roots from Spain. And to some extent it is true but not to the fact that we recognize, and truly, idolize the fact that there may be Spanish blood but that Latin America is a result of 'mestizaje' and was raped of its contents by the Spaniards and any other invader and conquistador. Latino is the true category.
It doesn't matter that Spain never recognized Mexico's claim. They became independent as of 1821, therefore making everything Spain had Mexico's. By the way, what is this reconquista you refer to. The only reconquista I know is when the Spaniards, with the start of Hernan Cortes, conquested Mexico and later Latin America.
It's not that I'm singling you out, Bobby. But I just used your comment as an avenue to further discuss the inaccuracies of your comments, and the writer's for that matter. Some of you commenting seriously need to take some Ethnic Studies courses to open up what has been a very single-minded education you may have had. I'm not saying I haven't either because I went through public school and was shocked in taking some courses at the difference.
#12 Bobby
on October 10, 2007 at 4:31 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
Just because Spain might have, as you say, raped Mexico etc. this has nothing to do with the English and Northern European civilizing influence in the United States. These people did not, like Spain did, just take out gold for the crown and leave little to the indiginous people. They built a modern nation from coast to coast that millions of people have benifitted from. In fact, the most modern and just nation ever built. Mexico, today, is a very racist country. Just ask the Black people and true Indian people who live there.
Ethnic studies classes are themselves taught in a very biased way. They assume that those who colonized and civilized certain nations were somehow evil. Perhaps they did some evil things, yes. This always happens when a more advanced culture, with superior weapons conquers a different less advanced culture. The Indian tribes were constantly at war with each other and often committed terrible atrocities against the loser of any given battle. The Aztecs were some of the most barbaric people in history. Surrounding Indian tribes, in fact, helped the Spanish to conquer them, because of all the atrocities the Aztecs committed against them. You won't get this view in ethnic studies classes and the reason is, they are themselves focused on race. The instructors are often Mexican and other nationalists, at heart,who have a chip on their shoulder. It is exactly ethnic studies classes and the instructors who teach them, that are single-minded, as you say. Single minded in their seething hate for this nation. Because of this very internet, millions of Americans now know who these people are and if this country wasn't so great, they would be thrown out on their a--ess, inside of having their salaries paid by the very people they spout off against.
#13 Chava
on October 11, 2007 at 9:55 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
First off, I'm not debating that any one 'people' have an inherent value than another (i.e. as Bobby has stated that Mexicans are good for nothing and just waste their land while Whites, specifically the European were benevolent to the Native Americans) but just correcting the writer's idea that Mexicans or any other non-white people were always here and that Mexicans have not just sprung up from the ground in recent immigration (or migration as I interpret it).
Bobby, I beg to defer. Europeans were not this religious group who, though they thought so, saved the world from eternal salvation. To the contrary, they pillaged and took what they thought was rightfully theirs, since they were superior. Have you ever hear of Manifest Destiny? A clear example against your claim is an event in the SW in 1838-1839 known as The Trail of Tears, in which Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy displaced the Cherokee nation and taking away its lands east of the Mississippi River and to migrate to an area in present-day Oklahoma. Through this process many were killed from hunger, disease, and exhaustion on the forced march. Over 4,000 out of 15,000 of the Cherokees died. (I quoted this from the PBS website).
I am not saying that one group is inherently better than another, just that Mexicans and other non-whites were here before the Whites and their westward expansion.
#14 Bobby
on October 11, 2007 at 1:55 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
You ARE saying that one group is inherently better than the other. It's the message written all through your posting. It's the hatefull and resentfull,message of ethnic studies classes, taught by hatefull and resentfull people with a chip on their shoulder. You misrepresented what I said. I never said Europeans were benevolent to the Native Americans. I never said Mexicans were or are worthless. Their leaders certainly are. I don't believe any people are worthless.
I said some evil was done by the Europeans. Wow! What a shock. Humans can be evil. Yes, they can. I said that the Native Americans battled each other, robbed each other, stole and raped each others women, killed each other and tortured and commited atrocities against each other while doing so. No, you wont' find it in the curricula of a college ethnics studies class. That is not their AGENDA.
My message was that the INDIANS, AFRICANS, AND EVERY OTHER GROUP, conquered, by lets say, the white people, were no more moral, not one bit, than those white people who conquered them. They just had inferior weapons. Had they not, they would have killed whites, just like they killed each other. Or are you saying it's more moral when racially identical, but otherwise, different groups kill each other, than when strangers kill strangers? Finally, Indians were here before EUROPEANS, and MEXICANS. Mexicans were not liked by most of the American Indian Chiefs, because they had been abused by Mexicans in the past. The Indian chiefs of the southwest constantly drove them out of THEIR land. So what. Someone was somewhere else everywhere in the world at one time. What has that got to do with today? Back to the United States.
I see the descendants of Indians owning and operating Casinos, they are given the best of everything by this nation. Mexicans have been allowed to work and take advantage of this largely European built society. A shocking truth ONLY to ethnic studies professors. As I said before, this is the most just,overall, nation that ever existed, and the descendants of those who built it, are constantly disrespected by racial groups like LA RAZA, MECHA, MALDEF and LULAC, to name a few, who tell them to go back to Europe, and disrespect this nations symbols,(flag) during their marches in support of illegality. If you want to believe the stuff preached in those ethnic studies classes, that's your right. In other nations, the people who teach that cr-p would simply be thrown out.
#15 Mr. Dithers
on October 11, 2007 at 8:44 p.m.(Loves Park, IL | Unverified Name)
"While illegal immigration is unacceptable, it is important to have sympathy for the migrants."
That's about the most nonsensical thing I've heard coming from "respectable" opponents of illegal immigration. Why should we have sympathy for these brown barbarians who take American jobs, depress the wage level for the unskilled, commit crime at a higher rate than the white majority, carry infectious diseases like chagas and tuberculosis and in general refuse to assimilate.
Mexican illegals aren't wringing their hands over the negative impact they have on our society and culture, so we should be indifferent to their plight and kicking them out of this country. We will lose this country if we allow them to stay and grant them legal status. It's time to bring back Operation Wetback.
#16 Carl W.
on October 12, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.(Sydney, Australia | Unverified Name)
Bobby wrote, 'As to Mexicos claim on U.S. soil, are they kidding? They can't even run their own backward, corrupt, drug infested nation, what will having another piece of land do for them? It will just become like the rest of it. Who is kidding who here?'
After 9-11 and Katrina, most people doubt that Americans are capable of running their own nation either.
#17 Jimmy Meddle
on October 12, 2007 at 1:15 a.m.(Sydney, Australia | Unverified Name)
This argument is fallacious. Sovereignty and population composition are not related. In 1939, for example, the world went to war to prevent the city of Danzig - population about 95% German - from being incorporated into Germany. The idea that Danzig should belong to Germany was considered so outrageous that millions of people died to defend the principle that the city should continue to belong to Poland. In the end, millions of Germans were moved so that the city could continue to belong to Poland. So history shows that your argument is seriously flawed.
#18 Bobby
on October 12, 2007 at 12:14 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
Carl W. Yep, it seems to be true. WE are letting it happen.
#19 Bobby
on October 12, 2007 at 12:14 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
Carl W. Yep, it seems to be true. WE are letting it happen.
#20 T.B
on October 12, 2007 at 3:19 p.m.(San Diego, CA | Unverified Name)
Interesting in all these comments that no one mentions the fact that most of the Americans who were in Texas while it belonged to Mexico were there ILLEGALY !! (IS THIS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF IN REVERSE?)That only a few had been allowed to live there through legal land grants. Are we now witnesses to MANIFEST DESTINY IN REVERSE?
Interesting to note also that throughout Hispanic America there is an enormous population of mestizos, the result of intermarriage between the indigenous populations and spaniards.
Can anyone count the number of Anglo/american mestizos in the U.S? Except for the very few who traditionally are proud to say they are a 1/4 blood of this tribe or another..
The Spaniards were not without fault, gold fever and religious zealotry being their worst attributes.
Can anyone tell me of Indian reservations created by the Spaniards where the indigenous populations were driven like cattle to geographical locations that were the equivalent of hell on earth? Ofcourse they enslaved many in the search for gold, but it wasn't a methodical extermination as it occurred in the US.
With regard to Mexico's corruption and drugs. When the US blocked the Caribbean drug routes (1960-70's), the result was that Mexico became the new highway into the nostrils of American addicts.
Curious how the voracious appetite for drugs in the US plays no role in what has become of Mexico? In the 1960's American long haired Hippies were turned back at the border because Mexico did not want their influence on their society.
The Billions of dollars of illegal drug money coming from the US through Mexico have had a devastating effect on Mexican politics and life. Note the Mexican drug czar that was on the take. The result is that many politicians in Mexico are even more corrupt.
Whereas before they stole from the treasury, today all they have to do is extend their hand and look the other way as drugs pass through their territory. They do this or die. "Plata o plomo" Silver or lead is the usual warning! Note the police chief in Nuevo Laredo (Mexico)who innocently took the post with the affirmation that he would fight the drug traffic, he lasted as police chief only a few hours before he was gunned down.!!
So why should they bother creating jobs for the population in order that the treasury collect taxes where they can get their hands on it.. It is much easier, lucrative, healthier, to just look the other way and retire rich.
Thus politicians don't bother to work as hard for their citizens, the result is a diminished middle class in Mexico, people without jobs or means of supporting their families hence the enormous illegal immigration problem in the US...
Who was complaining about vast amounts of illegal immigration in the 1960's ?
Looking at it from Mexico's point of view, it is America that has infested them with the majority of their severe ills.
Crossing the border illegaly or remaining in the country illegaly cannot be tolerated. But one can't be blind to the roots of the problem.
Baja California is populated by thousands of Americans who reside there illegaly today, for various reasons. Primarily because with their social security checks they can live in luxury in an inexpensive country. Will that be the Texas of this century ?
#21 Bobby
on October 13, 2007 at 1:31 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
Of course Mexico's point of view is that the U.S. is responsible for all of their ills. It is the view preached by the very corrupt Mexican officials to the public whom they abuse daily. Many Mexicans know this. They know that every President who comes to power in Mexico robs the people blind by the time their term of office is over. Then as you say they retire rich. Fox did the same. Some Mexicans accept the problem as THEIRS. In other words, when all is said and done, Mexicans are the root of their own problems. The honest ones admit it.
#22 Bobby
on October 13, 2007 at 1:37 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
I really should add, that if Mexican grievance groups in the United States, like LA RAZA, MECHA, MALDEF, LULAC, put the energy into going to Mexico and trying to influence change, or even trying to influence it from here, some Americans might even support them. But since they haven't the, let us say, gonads, courage, to challange that nation they resign themselves to trying to challenge the very liberal and just laws of this nation. There is a word for these kind of people.
#23 Bobby
on October 14, 2007 at 8:38 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
In case you guys didn't know, I'm THE biggest douche this side of the Mississippi. It is clear in my statements that I am 100% racist. Yadadimsayin. Cause I get it crackin. Also, the writer of this article is the 2nd biggest douche this side of the Mississippi. He says the Minute Men are "serving a heroic function." Oh hell no! That to me is not heroic. The Minute Men are incredibly racist. How can this damn writer defend them and even call them heroic. If he calls them heroic, I will call this writer a big retard! Which is true of course and should be fired immediately for writing such crap! "A Zogby's poll." really?!?!? Why don't you use a more credible poll. What a loser!
#24 Bobby
on October 14, 2007 at 8:38 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
In case you guys didn't know, I'm THE biggest douche this side of the Mississippi. It is clear in my statements that I am 100% racist. Yadadimsayin. Cause I get it crackin. Also, the writer of this article is the 2nd biggest douche this side of the Mississippi. He says the Minute Men are "serving a heroic function." Oh hell no! That to me is not heroic. The Minute Men are incredibly racist. How can this damn writer defend them and even call them heroic. If he calls them heroic, I will call this writer a big retard! Which is true of course and should be fired immediately for writing such crap! "A Zogby's poll." really?!?!? Why don't you use a more credible poll. What a loser!
#25 Bobby
on October 14, 2007 at 8:43 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Who the hell is pretending to be me? That is not cool! You damn leftist. I might be racist, but not 100%....maybe like 99.674%. Can someone please tell me why I'm a douche? What in the hell is that? Well, I'm gonna go ride my bicycle now. Did you guys know I like to ride my bike while listening to Britney Spears. She's a cutie pie.
#26 Brianna
on October 14, 2007 at 9:59 a.m.(Madrid, Spain | Unverified Name)
So what you're really trying to say is that the land should be given back to Native Americans?
#27 Bobby
on October 14, 2007 at 11:02 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Brianna, that's exactly what I is saying.
#28 scottyj
on October 15, 2007 at 2:03 p.m.(Brunswick, GA | Unverified Name)
To quote T.B.
Whites may have been in Texas illegally,but the illegal Mexicans cause more crime.The U.S. did not steal Texas,the people wanted to annex Teaxs from Mexico.In the Texas constitution it states,If at anytime native born Texans wish to vote the state out of the union they are welome to.
Also,if Mexico is so great,why are you all comming here?Another question,if Mexicans feel we the U.S. stole the southwest and they are re-claiming it,why are they in Ga and all up the eastern seaboard.Imagine if the U.S. never grew to what it is today,would all you so called Mestizo's still want it?
I'll say it loud,I think it is time for another trail of tears,right to Mexico.
P.S I wouldn't send you without your kids,you can take them with you.
#29 Cameron Newland
on October 20, 2007 at 11:06 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Carl W, great quote here:
'After 9-11 and Katrina, most people doubt that Americans are capable of running their own nation either."
Bobby's Impostor, kudos for injecting a little humor here. Just what this all-too-serious discussion needed.
Brianna, great point.
#30 T.B.
on October 21, 2007 at midnight(San Diego, CA | Unverified Name)
Bobby: If it is you who wrote..."Mexicans are the root of their own problems. The honest ones admit it."
Then I guess you could equally say "Americans are the root of their own problems. The honest ones admit it."
Stop snorting drugs, stop hiring illegals or PAY MORE FOR: mowing your own lawns, picking your own fruit and vegetables, washing your car.
Pay more at hotels and restaurants without these poor souls washing your dishes, making your beds and washing the laundry.
Start the draft because they won't be fighting your wars!
Why does it seem that when the economy is doing poorly society needs to find some group to pick on, usually the ones least able to defend themselves.?
Do illegals cost this country money? perhaps, but it would realistic to take into account that many of these illegals pay social security and income tax and overall never benefit from the money that is taken from them.
See article in the New York times.." illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/bus...
An interesting article if anyone really cares to read facts!
#31 Star
on October 23, 2007 at 11:58 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
To Those who are ignorant about his issue Im truly disgusted. T.B. and Chava make great points and Im proud to say Im a Mexican-American.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.