If Jews have a right to return do Mexicans have one also...

[pinkpops]

I mean, wasn't the Southwest populated by native Americans when the Europeans got here?
Does The grandson of an Italian immigrant http://www.tancredo.org/info/tom_tancredo_bio.html
have a greater right to be here?

[MountainLaurel]

1. Interesting point

And one that makes some sense.

:popcorn:

[Vidar]

2. Damn good point. How about the Indians?

[wuushew]

3. The term "right of return" is more appropriately used with Palestine

The analogy is still valid, though one is 2000 years vs. in living memory.

[RagingInMiami]

4. Well, if nobody knows they were here first

Then it's not official, which is why they don't stress that little detail of history to us in school.

[wtmusic]

5. Of course

But there really should be a statute of limitations on the settling of national scores, or we'll all be fighting until the end of time.

Although a complete and equitable rendering of justice is impossible, good intentions can help fill in the cracks.

[petronius]

6. Well, Mexicans weren't expelled, right?

When the various chunks of the SW changed hands, didn't the people in the Mexico part stay Mexicans and the people in the U.S. part become US-Americans? So who would return where?

I never really understood that pro-immigration chant of "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." The border didn't cross anyone who still lives in Mexico...

[Bad Thoughts]

10. It means that they never immigrated

They were never naturalized--they were never immigrants.

[petronius]

14. But it doesn't make sense - who would need to be naturalized?

For example, consider a person of Mexican ancestry living in California in the 1840s, wouldn't they just become US citizens like everyone else in CA in 1850? Whereas a person living in Mexico at the same time would be and remain Mexican...

[Bad Thoughts]

15. Question of process

Although there were Anglo-Americans who disputed their citizenship (mostly to disposses the wealth Rancheros in California), yes, they became American citizens, their rights to their culture confirmed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The phrase references the process by which they (and their descendants) became American citizens, which was neither by immigration, naturalization nor assimilation. The change of nationality occurred either passively or in spite of their actions

[petronius]

16. I get that - what I don't get is what it has to do with immigration

I hear the chant in a pro-immigration context, but it has no relevance to people who would need to immigrate...

[Bad Thoughts]

18. You would if society took the color of your skin

as a sign that you are an immigrant, or the immigration authorities harassed you in spite of your citizenship, or you were one of the citizens (or their descendants) who were forcibly repatriated to Mexico in the 1930s.

[petronius]

21. So you're saying that it is intended by US-Americans

of Mexican ancestry to assert the validity of their citizenship rather than an argument in favor of further immigration?

[Bad Thoughts]

22. Short answer, yes

Not all those of Mexican ancestry embrace Mexican immigrants. Those who call themselves Hispanos have been eager to distance themselves from whom they see as a foreign working class. Some support immigrant rights, others do not. Among those that do, some use their status as citizens as an extension of activism, others do not.

[petronius]

23. Interesting...thanks (nt)

[pinkpops]

12. I generally agree -

And as stated above, there has to be some limit on how far back you go, I mean the Mongolians were here first, from across the Bearing Straits I believe. But the land didn't change hands the way a car does when you transfer the title. I'm sure there were disenfranchised natives for some time. Basically I find it amusing that Amerikuns can be so indignant about foreigners steppin foot our land.

[Glorfindel]

7. Of course...the right to return to SPAIN! *hehehe*

Same difference, in my humble opinion. :rofl:

[Celeborn Skywalker]

9. Most Mexicans don't consider themselves

Spanish at all, so they wouldn't want to "return" to Spain. Most that I've known emphasize the Indian half of their ancestry.

[burrowowl]

29. My Grandmother nearly shot an Anglo

for calling her Spanish!
Mexicans are Mexicans, I'm part Mexican and proud of it. I don't like us being called Hispanic either.
In New Mexico, many liked to be called Spanish. The only pure 'Spanish' in NM are up North and very in-bred. The rest were under Mexico before the USA claimed NM.

[Bad Thoughts]

11. They are Mestizos

Most Mexicans have some mix of Spanish and Native American blood. So unless you have some Shylock-style solution ...

[radwriter0555]

25. Mexicans aren't spanish. What gave you that idea?

?

[JDPriestly]

8. moot point

The Mexicans are returning, and the country is richer for it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

13. It's more complex than that - because Mexicans aren't Native Americans

although they definitely have inherited Native American blood and culture. But Mexico also mistreated their Native American population in favor of their Spanish-influenced culture, language, and religion. Anyone who has read about the plight of the Yaqui Indians in Northern Mexico knows of the attrocities committed against them by the Mexican government that tried to rub out their culture. In fact, the Yaquis tried to declare independence from Mexico (Juan Banderas led them and was killed) and there's a famous massacre that occurred in which about 150 Yaquis were cornered in a church and it was set on fire, killing them all. The real Native Americans who inhabited California, for example, were horribly mistreated by Spanish missionaries, becoming virtual slaves and many were wiped out and never became the ancestors of living peoples who could claim a right to return. If you follow the idea of return to the limits, even the French or British with their Gaelic or Celtic ancestry could return to the Russian steppes (although they probably wouldn't want to). Unfortunately, the history of humanity is a succession of conquests, forced deportations, enslavements, and wholesale slaughter of native peoples. I hope one day that the world will set aside war and conquest and we will no longer find it necessary to have borders and exclusive immigration policies or even immigration laws for that matter. I hope for a world where we respect each other and our differences in every part of the planet. Unfortunately, I will probably never see it in my lifetime but I have the hope that we won't destroy each other first.

[Bad Thoughts]

17. The Native/European Dichotomy is not present

I don't want to be an apologist for the treatment of natives in Mexico, but the dichotomy between Native and Settler is not present as it is in the United States. Church policies heavily favored mixing of races. A child of a mixed coupling was not burdened by the presence of Indian blood in the same way that a child of one white and one black parent would be in the US. Most Mexicans are products of some sort of mixing, although their are pockets of pure natives. However, during the colonial period, when mixing was not as fully realized as today, full natives were among the Spanish/Mexican soldiers and settlers who established the current southwestern states. Indeed, the soldiers who settled in California were, according to Manuel Servin, either Indians or Mestizos ... almost no Spaniards, none of whom stayed. True, they were not native to the exact piece of land, but they were far from being Europeans.

But you are right: mistreatment of the pure native populations is still pervasive.

[catnhatnh]

20. Jeepers-why would you interject sense....

...into so facile an arguement...the "right of return" resounds with what Colbert calls "truthiness"...We are not supposed to notice that a "right" proposed by a desperate emerging state,established in 1948,might or might not apply to a dispute that predates it by 300 years-ask a Hopi or Navajo of the southwest if they would support a right of return for Mexicans....I have no idea what their reply might be-but neither does the original poster...

[radwriter0555]

26. Mexicans are indeed native Americans. Mexico is indeed part of the

Americas. The mexican indians freely traversed the lands between what is now known as Mexico and the US for hundreds of centuries. The indian tribes along the whole southwest USA region are all connected, related and interlinked, even if those links are in the somewhat distant past.

What is now known as Mexico and the USA didn't have a border instigated by its natural citizens, the native Americans of that region; that border that we now know is a european colonial invention created by natural landmarks and politics.

Please don't deny the continent's native aboriginals the right to their heritage and past, by claiming they're not Native Americans. They're the natural descendants of the aboriginals of the Americas.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

28. Disagree - SOME Mexicans, like some Americans are Native Americans

But Mexico remains a very stratified society. There are some restaurants in Mexico City where, if you look too Indian, they won't serve you. The power structure in Mexican politics, despite the fact that a pure blooded Indian Benito Juarez rose to become President in its past, remains stratified. Vicente Fox doesn't strike me as being a Mexican with too much Native American blood, beyond just his last name. To suggest that there is no racism in Mexican society and that all Mexicans are automatically Native Americans is to not understand that society. If you visit Mexico as I have, you sometimes see the poorest looking people begging on the streets, short-statured women wearing strange hats who don't speak a word of Spanish. These are Native Americans, who very often can't find work and are at the lowest rung of society, unfortunately.

If you read my post, you noted that I lamented the fact that many Native Americans had been massacred by the Mexican government and also by the Spanish missionaries. Of course Mexico never had the virulent genocidal hatred against Native Americans that the U.S. government had in its past. I am NOT trying to deny the aboriginal people their right to live in the homes of their ancestors. I'm merely pointing out that Mexican citizenship doesn't mean that one is a Native American. There are ethnic Blacks, Irish, French, English, Jewish, and many other peoples who have Mexican citizenship. I've known several ethnic Chinese who were born in Mexico. There certainly ARE Mexicans who continue to speak their native languages and practice their culture. But you cannot deny that the Mexican government has made efforts in the past to subdue the Native population. Why did the Chiapas Indians seek agreements with the Mexican government to end discrimination against Native American peoples, if the Mexican government was synonymous with Native Americans? I've already described the efforts by the Mexican government to rub out the Yaqui. They also fought the Apaches who didn't recognize the border between Mexico and the United States. And, by the way, Spanish is not a Native American language and nor is Catholicism a Native American religion.

[radwriter0555]

32. I don't believe in needing a measure of one's ethnicity to determine

someone's entitlement to rights or privilege. For the white european descended colonists of the USA to try to determine who is entitled to what, when it comes to all the people in Mexico is not the right thing to do.

This isn't about seperating whom the USA should treat how ONLY at the point of someone crossing a state border.

The point is the need for a cooperative agreement much like the EU has, with the same civil and human rights for everyone in that cooperative. (Worldwide would be nice too, but we have to start small, right?)

Any arguments that don't encompass a comprehensive, broad reaching solution are a waste of time.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

34. I agree that we need a cooperative agreement

I've posted before on DU about how I think a better solution would involve the creation of a union between Canada, the United States, the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America where a common passport would allow free travel and free rights to employment. I also have posted on the fact that I hope one day we no longer have borders or immigration laws. But free movement must apply to all and it must work both ways.

But the issue is not ethnicity and it's not the one I raised, or at least intentionally raised. I thought you were the one raising it, when you seemed to suggest that all Mexicans are Native Americans and therefore deserve a right of return. Does a Chinese Mexican then get excluded or is he called a Native American? How about a Jewish Mexican? If I'm mistaken in that assumption about your post, then I'm sorry. I attempted to raise the very opposite issue. The issue to me is citizenship. To be Mexican is to have a citizenship, not a particular ethnicity. There are Mexicans of every race and ethnicity and every percentage of Native American blood (for those of mixed blood) and Mexicans who have retained their Native American roots in their entirety and those who haven't retained them at all. Mexico, like the United States, is a nation ultimately founded by white European settlers, although fewer in number than in the U.S. Mexicans don't call themselves Indios, they call themselves Latinos and their language is ultimately derived from a European tongue, Latin. All too often, those in the power and money elite in Mexico are those who have the least amount of Native American blood. There was no natural boundary between Mexico and Guatemala or Belize before white men arrived. I too do not want to see race or ethnicity become an entitlement to anything. I agree with you that we need an agreement that treats all people equally and does not discriminate. I have a special place in my heart for Native American people because of the great harm that was done to them and lament the fact that in many cases entire tribes and languages were wiped out forever. But I agree with you (at least I think this is what you mean) that all people should be treated equally and that we should try to resolve the issue of immigration law with the goal of removing barriers instead of creating them and eventually doing away with them altogether.

[burrowowl]

31. The 'Spanards' in Mexico

have mistreated the 'Mexicans'. However, due to Jesuit influnce, slaves got a better deal in Mexico than the USA. Families were kept together and could not be sold separtly. Finally, slavery was abolished.

[Warpy]

19. Um, the Native Americans and the Mexicans never left

They're still here in New Mexico. Thank goodness.

[radwriter0555]

24. Since 1794 N. American Indians have had the right to cross the Canada/US

border unimpeded by immigration standards, a right guaranteed by the Jay Act.

Since 1794, Aboriginal Peoples have been guaranteed the right to trade and travel between the United States and Canada, which was then a territory of Great Britain. This right is recognized in Article III of the Jay Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation of 1794 and subsequent laws that stem from the Jay Treaty. have been guaranteed the right to trade and travel between the United States and Canada, which was then a territory of Great Britain. This right is recognized in Article III of the Jay Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation of 1794 and subsequent laws that stem from the Jay Treaty.

We all know why the US/Mexican aboriginals haven't been afforded this same privilege... good old racism.

Mexican Americans should be granted the rights to freely traverse the US/Mexican border, and should be granted the right to work here in the US, to pay taxes and to live, if they so choose.

They are after all, the natural citizens of this Continent.

This system works very well ALL OVER EUROPE. It's called the EU.

The North, Central and South American continents should follow the lead of EUROPE in creating a unified immigration, living and working policy.

[Zookeeper]

27. Ummmm...

Perhaps you are not aware of the level of racism that Native American people in the northern states have experienced. If they are allowed to travel across the U.S./Canada border freely (which is news to me), it may be because we don't have 12 million Canadians interested in living here illegally. I also question whether the Sioux and Chippewa people here would consider Mexicans "natural citizens" of Minnesota and Wisconsin.

I don't doubt that Texas, Arizona, etc. have citizens who are racist toward Mexicans, but I'm sure there are also valid reasons for wanting to maintain some control over a border shared with a country full of corruption and poverty, with citizens flooding (again, 12 million) in to make money.

BTW, as far as I've read, the EU isn't going out of it's way to open their borders to all of the North Africans who are risking their lives trying to get into Spain.

[radwriter0555]

33. Africans aren't part of the EU. What does that have to do WITH the EU?

The EU is working very well.

Why does race and ethnicity need to be factored into anything in this matter? The point is that an all-encompassing Mexico/Canada/USA agreement like the EU has would be the most effective solution to the entire scenario.

Does it matter what the color of someone's skin is or from where they originated? Of course not. Those types of points are irrelevent.

The point is a sound, comprehensive economic and social policy that will serve the needs of all the people and nations involved.

North American Union.

I like the sound of it.

[Zookeeper]

35. Yes, the EU is working well.

My North African analogy (which has nothing to do with race, I'm not sure why you jumped to that conclusion), is the closest I could come to the scenario of citizens of a dangerous, corrupt, impoverished place (Mexico) moving by the millions (12 million currently) into a more stable society that has done no planning for such a huge increase in population.

I don't think the Swiss are worried about being overwhelmed by 12 million French or British immigrants.

And let's say we open our southern border and millions more people move into the Southwest or Plains states....where is their water coming from? The Colorado river is already being used, Lake Mono is dried up, the aquifer under the Great Plains is also at risk. And any attempt to divert the Great Lakes will be bloody (and I'll be on the front lines). America's days of unlimited natural resources are past. We have no business adding millions more people until we can GREEN up our act.

On edit: You are actually the one who keeps bringing up race and seem to be basing your premise on the idea that Mexicans are the true native people, and therefore should be able to go wherever they want in North America. Which is why I pointed out that the Sioux and Chippewa people of this region may not agree. They are the true native people HERE. DUers from Southern California and the Southwest make a lot of assumptions about the rest of the country that are not accurate or relevant to us.

[tritsofme]

36. The EU situation is not comparable.

The US and Canada exist in the First World, Mexico and most of Latin America do not.

There is no comparable situation within the member nations of the EU.

[Zookeeper]

37. You said that better than I did...

and with fewer words, too!

[TankLV]

30. Verrrrrrry Interestink!

As Artie Johnson used to say on Laugh-In.

At first glance, I would say yes - as long as their allegience were to the US and not Mexico.

We stole/won it fair and square in a war, you know.

And until/unless Mexico gets a sudden gift of democracy and justice instead of crony corruption that exists there now that is beyond the repukes' wildest dreams, I'd have to make that a requirement.

But who know how bad things will be if the repukes retain their hold on power many more years...

[radwriter0555]

38. You mean to say that crony corruption isn't the political landscape

in the USA now?

At this point Mexico appears far better run than the USA... It's a lot worse than you think. The gop will indeed hold their power for a good 10 years at least.