Should the USA Annex Mexico?

It feels nice to agree on something, doesn't it?

Well, that's exactly your proposals didn't deal with :wink:

Walter, I don't think you are understanding my proposal then. I don't want to rehatch it yet again so please re-read it or point out any specific questions you have.

I agree with that last statement wholeheartedly, JP, and would add that the re-election anxiety is assuaged by large cash donations from those who profit from illegal immigration, and those who profit in a host of other areas from political influence, bought and paid for.

Many voters, however, do exactly what you say--they don't vote.

****************************

After first noting that i do not necessarily impute to you the character of the statements which CJ has made in this thread, allow me to explain what drew me to this thread, and what has motivated my comments.

Dealing first with the past, there can be no doubt to anyone who has thoroughly studied that period, studied the immigration of Protestant English-speakers into Texas, studied the Texican Revolution (Texican is what they called themselves at that time), and then studied the history which lead from that revolution to the annexation of the Republic of Texas and the Mexican War, that the following statements are true:

That in 1812, white, slave-owning "filibusters" from Louisiana attempted to invade and occupy Texas, and failed.

That Jean and Pierre Lafitte took the Texan town of Galvez Town (modern Galveston) in 1817, fighting off the Mexicans until 1820, when they gave it up. From there, the brothers Lafitte carried on their piracy business and smuggled slaves in to Louisiana, despite the fact that this violated the law in Mexico and the United States. James Bowie worked with them in their slave-running business before going into the land fraud scam, when he forged land grant documents which he claimed had been issued by Governor Galvez before Louisiana was sold to the United States.

That Moses Austin received a grant of land in the State of Texas y Coalingua, a state of the United States of Mexico (the official name of that nation).

That Stephen Austin, the son of Moses, lead white Protestant settlers and their black slaves into Texas, his father having died.

That the agreement was violated by white settlers who were in violation of Mexican law by possessing slaves and importing slaves into the sovereign territory of Mexico. That the Mexicans then violated their agreement with Moses Austin by requiring white Protestants to adopt the Catholic religion. This was an affront upon which Texicans based their rebellion, as a violation of the 1824 Mexican Constitution. However, it did not specifically violate that Constituion, and at all events, the measure was never enforced by the Mexicans. But the Texicans now had their casus belli.

That having defeated and captured Santa Anna, then the President of the United States of Mexico, the Texicans held him imprisoned, and in irons, and frequently threatened with his life.

That the treaty which Santa Anna eventually agreed to with the Texicans specified the Rio Grande as the border of the new Repbulic.

That the government of Mexico deposed Santa Anna, and repudiated the treaty. You will understand that this is a reasonable move when you consider that our own President cannot make treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate.

That even after recognizing the independence of a portion of the State of Texas y Coalingua, the Mexicans stipulated the Nueces River as the boundary of that republic, and never recognized the Rio Grande as the boundary.

That prior to the annexation of the Republic of Texas, the government of President John Tyler attempted to pruchase "the rest of Texas" (that part of the State of Texas y Coalingua which was not in the newly founded republic, and which roughly corresponds to what we later stole from them by force of arms) and California from Mexico. The Mexicans refused to entertain the mission, which is entirely reasonable, and represents a time-honored and internationally recognized diplomatic movement to refuse an embassy which implies an acceptance of any terms. The Mexicans stated as they always had that no part of their nation was for sale, and that they therefore would not accept the mission and the agent sent by the United States.

That at the time of the annexation of Texas, President Polk renewed the offer to purchse "the rest of Texas" and California, which the Mexicans again rejected with the assertion that no part of their nation was for sale, and that the did not recognize the claim to the land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.

That Polk then sent Zachary Taylor to the Sabine River, and then to the Nueces, and finally to the Rio Grande. At the Rio Grande, a field fortification was built with emplacements of heavy artillery, across the river from Matamoros. Ask yourself how Americans would react to a foreign power building fortifications on territory we claimed, and erecting gun emplacements which were in range of one of our cities. Prior to Taylor moving to the Rio Grande, the Mexican President, Parades told Polk in no uncertain terms that he would consider that an act of war, and would attack. When the local commander did not attack, Parades replaced him with a man who would. This is the basis of the specious claim by members in this thread that it was a war of "self-defense."

TTthe United States Navy to the Pacific coast to land forces in what is now northern California.

That this "war of self-defense" involved sending a large expedition overland, from Missouri, through literally thousands of miles of Mexican territory to seize what is now southern California.

That this "war of self-defense" involved an invasion by Taylor to seize Matamoros, to march south to Monterrey and seize that city, to march further south to Saltillo and seize that city, and to finally march south until contact was made with Santa Anna's army (he had returned to Mexico and seized power from Parades, who had already gone into hiding).

That this "war of self-defense" involved the Winfield Scott expedition, heavily supported by the United States Navy which also had the purpose of driving off the Royal Navy and the French fleet who were then attempting to seize the customs revenues at Vera Cruz to satisfy the debts of their citizens. Scott landed, took Vera Cruz, marched inland and defeated Santa Anna at Cerro Gordo, marched further inland and seized Puebla, and finally marched on and took the capital at the city of Mexico.

That the United States Army continued to occupy the city of Mexico until a Mexican government agreed to the sale of a third of their territory to the United States. If you can't understand that this was done under duress at the force of arms, there will be little hope of your understanding anything about history.

**********************
The above explains why i remarked that i was amused that those who holler loudest about immigrants are hollering in the territory which we stole from the Mexicans. This spawned the host of idiotic assertions that we were just fighting a defensive war.

In the present, this discussion which focuses on Spanish-speaking immigrants (not nearly all of whom can be said to be Mexicans) ignores a great deal of reality, and relies upon clearly racist assertions. CJ claims that he sees illegal immigrants riding around neighborhoods on bicycles looking for lawns to mow. That means he thinks he can tell if someone is an immigrant just by looking at them. That means he thinks he can tell that they are illegally in the United States just by looking at them. Both of these are absurd contentions.

I long lived in southern Illinois, which, because of a large fruit industry, is a magnet for many Spanish-speaking migrant workers. The most of them are likely illegals, but they get away with it because they are largely "invisible." They don't show up at hospitals for medical care, they don't get drivers' licenses, they don't apply for welfare--because they are illegal. They do pick apples and peaches which we can buy at good pricses because their employers don't have very high payroll expenses.

I also long lived in Ohio. In the Columbus, Ohio area, if you go into a fast food restaurant, the majority of faces you see there will be brown, and you will hear Spanish spoken. That's because high school kids who live there won't work for the $8-$10 an hour which the Spanish-speakers will gladly take. I was long employed managing small businesses, and i know that you can't employ someone illegally very long in Ohio, unless your operation is very small and unnoticable. There is the Ohio New Hire Program, which requires that all new employees must be reported to the state within ten days (the purpose happens to be to look for child support cheaters, but it finds lots of folks for lots of reasons), and that no business which complies with tax withholding laws will very long get away with attempting to dodge the New Hire Program. You can bet McDonalds and Wendys and The Outback Steakhouse don't try it, they've got too much at stake to play games like that. You see them working at Mieirs, at WalMart, at the Seven-Eleven. There is no doubt that they are there legally, because employement practices in Ohio are such that the employer wouldn't get away with employing illegals. It is very rare, in my admittedly anecdotal experience, that you see brown faces on the landscaping crews mowing the lawns at the your apartment complex, because high school kids and college kids fill those crews--they will work for the wages, which often exceed $10/hour. Construction crews are likely not employing illegals either, for the very good reasons i've already outlined and because of the strict prevailing wage laws which are rigorously enforced in Ohio, once more putting another obstacle in the way of employing people illegally.

That tells me that the most of the many, many Spanish-speakers whom i saw all around me in Ohio were there legally. The assumption of almost everything CJ posts is that anyone with a brown face is an illegal immigrant. You might imagine (i know you possess sufficient imagination for this) how disgusted i am by such unwarranted assumptions.

As i've already noted, i don't accuse you of making such assumptions. But i'm in this thread because of such assumptions, and because the focus is on Spanish-speakers, and not on the at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other immigrants, legal or illegal, who don't speak a word of Spanish.

Having lived in California for twenty years, one thing very noticable here in Michigan is going to Taco Bell and actually receiving what you ordered.

Here real Americans do all those undesirable, beneath us jobs that supposedly no American wants to do. So, that argument is bullshit.

The illegals are here and taking jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. The employers are mostly at fault for hiring them in the first place. Once the pattern is set, however, it is almost impossible to break. Who in their right mind would want to go work in or manage a restaurant where no one speaks the same language? In the California construction biz, if you don't speak Spanish (the Mexican version), you don't work.

And those are good jobs, not bent over picking berries.

yep, we all understand your feelings about this e.

but to be fair, now it's your turn to understand that many americans (latest polls suggest 70-71% of us...) also take it personally when people who enter the u.s. illegally (and, yes; to enter undocumented is illegal ) have the kind of economic, social and civil defense impact that we are seeing.

i take it personally when people that i care about are unable to achieve or maintain the kind of life that they want for their family because they are constantly battling for work that an illegal will do for half as much. despite where i live now, i still have people that i care about in the south that are having a sh*t hard time keeping farming and factory work in the small towns they were born in; because illegals have swamped the area.

you seem to labor under the illusion that every person in america has been born into the lap of luxury.

have you ever been to the appalachian region ? do you get it that there are americans down there living in shacks with dirt floors ? do you get it that some folks are entirely unsuited for a career in stock trading ? not everyone has the mental horsepower to be a c.e.o., ya know.

so what are they supposed to do ? starve ? where is their help ?

have you ever been to the midwest ? do you get it that small farmers, some of whom are from a family of farmers going back near two centuries can no longer compete against the large aggie corporations that employ illegal immigrants by the hundreds ? do you get it that the employing of illegal cheap labor hurts families? do you get it that when a small farm can no longer support that family, that it separates families ?

so what are they supposed to do ? which member of the family should fall on his pitchfork so the youngest can survive ?

have you ever been in harlem? how about south l.a. ? west side louisville ?

how about the 9th ward of new orleans ?

where is your compassion for these people ?

you keep talking about how illegals are only coming here to make a better life for their families.

okay. so where are native born americans supposed to illegally immigrate to for a better life if they can't get it here?

do you not believe that born americans do not deserve the same humane treatment that you advocate so loudly for those born elsewhere ?

---

do you get it that there are millions of americans that are not making it ? do you get it that they are having an increasingly hard time getting the help from government services that they and their families have paid into for over a half century ? illegal immigrants are creating a humongous drag on the system. what part of that alludes you ?

and at the same time, most illegals are sending the bulk of their money back to their country of origin. how is that good for the economy of the united states ?

i don't know about where you live, but here in sunny south california, i have seen the gang problem grow in direct proportion to the increase in illegal immigrants. in response, urban american gangs have also grown.

do you get it that poses a direct threat to me and my family ?

---

do you get it that, despite what bush says, we were not attacked on 9/11 by iraq, but by individuals; some of whom were here illegally and some of whom were on expired visas. and that thanks to a hamstringing of the n.i.s. and an immigration policy that is so widely disregarded that it's totally useless, multiple thousands of americans were killed that day ?

so, should we just keep ignoring the problems and hey, if it happens again, that's okay?

---

i don't dislike you, e. in fact, on most topics we more or less are on the same page.

but in this case, frankly, i don't see that you are asserting your calls for compassion and humane treatment in an even handed way. you don't really seem to care about the folks that were born here. certainly not in a primary way.

there are people here that i care about, and the huge flow of illegal immigrants is hurting them.

and i take that personally.

DTOM,

In that last post, you are completely full of it. This line of argument is nearly devoid of anything resembling fact or logic.

Small family farms.... come on!

Small family farms are among the strongest opponents of restricting immigration.

The unemployment rate is under 5% and small family farms are desparate to find the labor they need.





USA Today

You should think before you post son. Pulling stuff out of your butt without even checking facts makes you look stupid and ruins any possibility for a reasonble discussion.

If you care about workers (as I, and most progressives do) then you will support measures that truly will help workers. This means fair wages, worker protections, unions and health care for all workers.

A path to legalization-- meaning that businesses (including small family farms) have the workers they need, but the workers have the protections to keep them from being exploited is clearly the best thing for labor. This is why of us who have always supported the labor movement (instead of just using it to bash foreigners) are in favor of a path to citizenship for migrant workers.


Pitting worker against worker is a tried and true tactic of big business. The unemployment rate is around 5% meaning that a big glut of workers is not the problem.

Pardon my sharp response, but you are really stretching the facts awfully hard to make a point that isn't supportable at all.

Thank you for labeling yourself as a progressive.

Now, c'mon. You know that unemployment number is a lie; the actual number is far higher.

Cycloptichorn

thank you for your thoughtful response.

i don't need to cut and paste stuff, i know what i have seen and heard first hand. and what i'm hearing from you is that your compassion is a one way street.

i won't be getting into trading insults like "stupid" with you. and it sure as hell won't do anything towards swaying me to your side.

ebrown, One little correction; the unemployment rate is below 5 percent; a rate most economists agree is full employment.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46687/print/



This conflict affects all areas of our society.

Cycloptichorn

it gets calculated on new and existing claims as i understand it. is that true ? it doesn't take into account thaose that do not recieve unemployment benefits ?

Set,

Thanks for the post and the background info, I always appreciate your (and Asherman's) well researched and informative history lessons.

Let me share with you my experiences and since your are talking about hispanic immigrants I too will stay on that topic.

I was born and raised in Northern Illinois about 45 minutes out of Chicago (at least it used to be a 45 minute drive). I lived in a pretty diverse area. Elgin, whose population surpassed 100,000 in 2005, was just a few miles south of me and Carpentersville (right next door to me with a population of 30,586 as of 2000 census) both had large hispanic bodies as well as a whole slew of other ethnic minorities. Less diverse communities of Algonquin and Crystal Lake were to the north of me. The high school I attended had a large hispanic population and was very diverse.

I also lived in Southern Illinois (Carbondale) for a short time and could see how an illegal immigration population could easily be invisible considering I found northern Illinois much more diverse than southern.

Now, I am (obviously) in Milwaukee and live in a neighborhood that I would say is upwards of 80% hispanic.

I understand that a wrong was committed in the past in the annexation of Texas, however i fail to see where that fits into todays discussions. If immigration was simply a problem in Texas or California it may be pertinent but last time I checked Milwaukee Wisconsin was much further north. The point being is that immigration is a much larger issue than Texas or California.

My major disagreement with your post (and many other peoples arguments) is the argument of "they do jobs Americans don't want." I, and many of my friends, worked those jobs ourselves while we were in highschool and some even carried through while I worked my way through college. I worked at McDonalds. I worked landscape at the town cemeteries. I worked as a janitor after school hours and during the summer. These are all jobs that supposedly Americans don't want, but to me were the only source of income I had. I just don't feel that it is a valid argument and see no proof that it is true.

It is one of those statements that people toss around as if it were the absolute truth without ever showing any evidence to support it.

A friend of ours owns a small construction company. Every year the IRS sends a list of invalid SS numbers. Every year the workers simply give a new one, our friend sends them back to the government and every year they come back invalid again. Now I don't know for sure that these are illegal aliens, but there is enough evidence that I feel safe to assume that they are. It is illegal for our friend to question the legitimacy of those SS numbers and equally illegal to fire the workers on the assumption that they are illegal (nice Catch 22 they have there). Now these aren't low paying fast food jobs we are talking about but decent paying construction jobs that a lot of people would be very grateful to have.

Living in the heighborhood that I do I see a lot of what goes on. There are very acclimated families in the neighborhood and some families that are not so acclimated. My neighbor owns a duplex and rents out the lower floor. Most of the tenants he rents to are of the un-acclimated variety.

Now I am not saying that the acclimated families are all legal and the un-acclimated ones are all illegal, but I would be willing to bet that there is a correlation between legal immigrants and their level of acclimation into American society.

The few times that I have been at the DMV there has always been at least one hispanic there filling out the forms and translating for another. Again, I don't know for sure that these are illegal immigrants but I would be willing to bet that there is at least a percentage that are considering Wisconsin doesn't require much proof of residency in order to obtain one.

Living in a decent sized metropolitan area with some of the highest healthcare costs in the country, I would also be willing to bet the house that there are a percentage of illegal immigrants that use the healthcare system and that legal citizens are the ones footing the bill.

I have a Mexican friend that immigrated here legally back in the late 60's. He teaches Spanish literature in the public schools to Spanish speaking students. He sees first hand the cost of illegal immigrants (or the children of) in the school system. Again, not all of the students are illegal (or children of) but a percentage of them are.

***************************

The only point I am trying to make is that this is a large large issue and while your experiences have been that they only take the jobs that americans don't and don't use healthcare or schools or get a drivers license my experiences have been different and often opposite.

While I don't always agree with how cjhsa expresses his frustration, I certainly understand where it is coming from. I, like him, feel that illegal immigrants do take jobs that Americans want. Do use the healthcare and educational systems. And do feel that an open border policy is a dangerous policy.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind wanting to let anybody anywhere into our country, no matter how much perceived good they are doing, when, I think, there is a reasonable compromise to be reached somewhere in the middle.

That's right, and it doesn't take into account those who have stopped seeking unemployment benefits, either because their unemployment has run out or they have simply given up and turned to less legal pursuits.

Not only that, but the number of people officialy seeking employment has been reduced by a percentage point over the last few years, in order to keep that number lower. If you don't assume that less people are seeking work, then number of unemployed Americans rises by 5 to 7 million folks.

The simple and easiest step to stopping illegal immigration is to crack down on those who hire illegals! If there are no jobs, they won't come. I don't believe Americans won't work the jobs, that's bullsh*t. They just won't work them for slave labor prices.

Actually enforcing these laws will mean a rise in the price of many, many of our goods, especially Housing and Food. But what do people expect? That we can solve the illegal immigration problem without any pain at all on our part? Yeah f*ckin' right!

Cycloptichorn

by the way, e...

in your article, it plainly states that the guy's "mexican workers" are all holding visas...

the debate is over undocumented/illegal immigrants.

and that's what you keep wanting to sweep out of the converstion.

you wanna talk about logic ? jeeezzz... don't you think that illegal workers are undercutting the visa holders ?

I agree with those that do not put much faith in government stats on the "official" unemployment rate for all reasons already delineated. Unemployment rates in the US are fictional numbers that lacks the true unemployment rate in the US.

yes. and i'll even go a step further in the direction of compassion;

the u.s. should get together with the leaders of (in this particular discussion) of the central and south american countries and tell them to quit jerking their own people around.

with all of the resources and manpower available south of the border there is not one good reason for those people to be living a life of poverty.

simply moving the fruit of the loom factory down there isn't gonna do it. the individual countries need to take some responsibility for the welfare of their citizens.

yep. wouldn't want bushy to look bad.

but once again, what i see when i look around is a while lot different from what i'm told. on so many fronts...