I almost never discuss anything related to the topic of politics in this forum, but I am going to break my own rule this one time:
Let me, at the outset, before the inevitable, shrill-shrieking war-cries of RACIST begin being rained down upon me state the following facts: I have a varied and diverse social circle: 6 Arab friends (3 Palestinians, 1 Egyptian, 1 Syrian & 1 Jordanian) 2 Persian friends, a handful of Brits, Scots, Irish, 6 or 7 Mexicans (Architects, Engineers, Lawyers & restaurateurs) , 3 or 4 Indians, a couple of Pakistanis and I married into a Chinese family. Not one of any of them has ever received or asked for one red cent of state or federal money and all have worked their asses off every day of their lives in this country to make their lives, and the lives of their children better. Every last one of them is a legal citizen and, when queried, replies proudly that they are AMERICANS, albeit with diverse backgrounds, they all, everyone one, identify themselves as AMERICANS. Oh, they ALL speak English, fluently…
With that reality in mind, I would like to ask, please, exactly where and how my life is enriched and enhanced by allowing hordes of illegal “Latins” to swarm over the border. Living as I do in Texas, (but NOT being a born native with that irritating hyper-Texas-Nationalism that is one of the many unattractive traits of this place), I see on a regular basis the ever-growing swell of these illegals and there are massive differences between the aforementioned group and this group. The pernicious “anchor baby” loophole is standard operating procedure in many cases and is just the tip of the iceberg of reprehensible behavior. Indolence and ignorance are coupled with an outraged sense of entitlement which is, predictably, encouraged and played to by the “new left” down here with nauseating inevitability.
I want to address this “entitlement” fallacy:
This springs from a long-smouldering sense of outrage at the “gringos” & Norte-Americanos which in turn arises from events in the 19th century which are largely unknown, misunderstood or cynically twisted for political advantage. The accepted dictat now is that every Mexican has a legitimate “right” to be on land which was part of an Atlantis-like mythical landmass called Aztlan at some magical period in history which never existed.
The truth is widely different: When Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, after 11 years of struggle, it comprised an enormous swath of land including, as we all know, the territories which are now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and of course, Texas. What seems to have been forgotten is that it also included modern Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama. (This becomes important later, so just remember it!)
Within a year of independence, Mexico’s “bright, new democracy” had been tossed away in favor of the dictatorship of General Agustín de Iturbide who had fought against the Spanish and had himself crowned Emperor for his troubles. When Iturbide dissolved a noncompliant congress and decided to rule by decree, a number of other would-be dictators made common cause amongst themselves to establish a “republic” (in other words replace Iturbide with themselves) and ousted Iturbide in 1823. A leader of this insurrection was Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Even the briefest research will show that between 1823 and the Texas Succession in 1836, Mexico had 8 coups or radical changes in the presidency, none were the result of actual open or fair elections. At the end of this period, Santa Anna had made himself autocrat and had centralized all power, abrogating the earlier, “liberal” constitution and replacing it with his own in 1836. His views on the subject were quite clear: “A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them…”
This act sparked uprising and rebellion throughout the Mexican Empire and many of the provinces set up their own governments with the intention of creating their own independent satrapies including Yucatan, Guanajuato, Durango, Michoacan and, of course, Texas (Coahuila y Tejas).
(At this point a quick word about the Anglo immigrants in Tejas is necessary. In the 1820s, the “new” “Mexican Empire” was bankrupt and the idea arose to invite Norte Americanos to immigrate into border territories in the hope that they would improve the economy with what was perceived (in a case of racial profiling I would posit) as “Yankee” industriousness and ingenuity. It would also create a larger manpower pool for militias with which to combat the Indians; the “original” inhabitants—to be distinguished from the Spanish and Mexican invaders, conquerors and immigrants. It is vital to note that these North American settlers where INVITED, nay begged, in some instances, to move into Mexico's foreign, sovereign territory.)
So, Santa Anna’s repudiation of the 1824 “liberal” Constitution led to widespread revolt. He led his armies in a brutal extermination campaign against the various rebellious provinces, slaughtering unarmed peons or ill-equipped scratch-force militias who had dared oppose his authoritarianism. In late 1835, the settlers (Mexican and Anglo both, it must be noted) in Tejas also rose in revolt and declared independence in March of 1836. Shortly afterward Santa Anna stormed the Alamo and three weeks later massacred rebels at Goliad. On April 21, 1836, however he was soundly defeated and was, himself, captured at the Battle of San Jacinto. As the Head of State of Mexico he concluded the Treaty of Velasco by which he, himself, and in his official character as chief of the Mexican nation “acknowledg[ed] the full, entire, and perfect Independence of the Republic of Texas."
Santa Anna was, upon his return to Mexico, of course, promptly overthrown by yet another government coup which proceeded to repudiate the Treaty of Velasco. This same government however, promptly gave him command of the army two years later when the French landed a military force in Veracruz (for reasons which are beyond the present scope but which included Mexican repudiation of another treaty). Once again the “Napoleon of the West” was defeated in battle, but managed to use the army to again seize power and make himself autocrat. He managed to defeat another rebellion and once again launched another military invasion of the now independent Texas in 1842—which was again unsuccessful but which had the effect of hastening Texans to join the United States, an annexation in 1845 neither anticipated nor desired by the autocrat. He was exiled to Cuba in 1845.
The latest Mexican government, again repudiating the Velasco treaty and refusing to recognize the independence of Texas, its annexation by the United States, or any of the borders between the two sovereign countries based on that Treaty, broke diplomatic relations with the United States and proceeded to invade the United States in 1846 with a 2,000 man army which attacked United States forces in April of 1846.
The result was a disaster for Mexico. Not unlike the Argentine-Falklands fiasco in the 1980’s the Mexican Government started what it hoped was to be a popular war, with the intent of shifting focus from its own graft, corruption and incompetence and what it got instead was an absolute drubbing by the small, comparatively professional American army. A drubbing moreover made worse by the return from exile of Santa Anna who proclaimed himself autocrat again and savior of the country. If the Mexican people were upset that he had given away Texas last time, they were about to be given a far greater shock: Their invasion of the United States ended up costing Mexico the aforementioned states of California, etc al. in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which gave undisputed (until recently) control of Texas, California etc. to the United States. In return, the United States paid $457,373,077 (in modern dollars) to Mexico and paid off another $81,450,000 in Mexican debt. Thus ended the war begun by Mexico.
The vast majority of Mexicans living in those barren, inhospitable and unproductive regions ceded to the United States STAYED in those territories and became American citizens, preferring the freedom and stability of living under the United States Government to any sort of racial-nationalist identification with “Mexican Pride.” There was no “trail of tears” of weeping refugees pushing handcarts southward through the snow, being harried by Cossack-like dragoons, no displaced persons huddled in refugee camps.
As to Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua et al., Mexico lost those portions of its “Empire” within two years of its “independence”, far sooner than the Tejas uprising stripped it of that northern province. I am unaware of a loud and vibrant protest on the part of any Mexicans insisting that the nation-states of the former “Federal Republic of Central America” be returned to its “historic-racial control” nor have I heard that there are millions of Mexicans illegally crossing the borders of Guatemala et al. demanding or being accorded privileged status on the backs of the taxpayers of those independent countries.
So much for the legendary Arcadia of Aztlan and White Male Oppressor Guilt… During its turbulent history, Mexico seems to have lived up to Santa Anna’s cynical assessment of it. Besides changing governments during the 19th century with greater frequency than most of its citizens changed clothes, it consistently refused to abide by any treaties and agreements which any of the revolving-door governments signed and to which they agreed. This included agreements with England, Spain and France in addition to the United States. The ex-officio policy for most of the 20th century was to foster the misguided belief that the evil gringos had invaded and stolen land from the valiant Mexicans, never admitting or acknowledging that their own political and military incompetence and downright stupidity and greed were the causes, coupled with a persistent inability to create and maintain a stable government.
Now, having exported this deformed, deranged, dangerous and wrong view of history across the border; carried in the bellies of pregnant mothers and in the eyes and hearts of every illegal who views North America as his “manifest destiny and birthright”, the “New Left” has given cache to this revisionist nonsense and urges, in the name of Liberal Guilt that it be made canon and allowed as a legitimate element of foreign and domestic policy.
And it this not immigration as I mentioned at the beginning of this rant; it is not people who come here, at any cost, because they want to be AMERICANS, live freer lives and raise their families as proud citizens. People who work hard, make their children go to school and learn, who eagerly embrace their new country and its language beliefs and customs. No, far from it, this is a rabble-tide who believe they are entitled to come here, refuse to learn English, work off the radar, pay no taxes, refuse to abide by laws, customs and mores of this country and yet feel they are entitled to be supported and further, that they have some sort of legally and morally protected right for such actions and that it must be respected and given equality as a legitimate view of “citizenship.”
The drunkenness, the refusal to learn English, the tribalism and appalling hygiene, (defecating in their own yards, which I have seen more times than I can count), the poorly recycled German polka music, the disdain and eschewal of codes of civic behaviour and civil responsibility, adherence to laws, and now bringing the drug lord and gang blood feuds over the border with them. This is what I am suppose to support?
So, I ask again, WHY am I suppose to feel guilty and beholden to a rabble of Mexican peons and how does their invasion enlighten me or add to my quality of life?
Here endeth the lesson...
**M**
