Posted on 04/08/2006 9:00:31 AM PDT by axes_of_weezles
For example, in 1541 Coronado entered present-day New Mexico searching for "cities of gold," and one of his first actions on meeting the natives was to burn 100s of them alive in their dwellings, for not handing over suspected horse thieves. That is how Spain conquered the natives of the present US Southwest--not nicely! It was certainly no love-fest between long-lost brown-skinned soul-mates, as it is often portrayed today by the delusional Aztlaners today!
By 1821, Mexico City was strong enough to overthrow even more decrepit and ineffectual Spanish rule. However, the distant provinces of the current US Southwest were far beyond the reach of the authority of independent but strife-torn Mexico. These distant northern provinces received neither military protection nor needed levels of trade from the south.
For example, Comanches ran rampant in the 1830s in this new power vacuum, burning scores of major ranches that had been around for hundreds of years and massacring their inhabitants. Mexico City could neither defend nor keep the allegiance of its nominal citizens in these regions. Nor could it provide needed levels of trade to sustain the prior Spanish-era standard of living.
Meanwhile, a growing America was making great inroads into the Southwest, via ships into California, and via gigantic wagon trains of trade goods over the Santa Fe Trail from St. Louis. The standard of living of the SPANISH in these states subsequently increased enormously, which is why they did not support Mexico City in the 1846-48 war. In fact, the Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER considered themselves "Mexicans" at all, ever. They went, in their own eyes, from SPANISH directly to AMERICAN.
So how long did Mexico City have even nominal control over the Southwest? For only 25 years, during which they had no effective control, and the area slipped backwards until the arrival of the Americans. Since then, how long has the area been under firm American control? For 150 continuous years.
And now, we are supposed to let any Mexican from Chiapas, Michoacan or Yucatan march into the American Southwest, and make some "historical claim" of a right to live there? From where does this absurd idea spring?
At what point in history did Indians from Zacatecas or Durango stake a claim on the American Southwest? Neither they nor their ancestors ever lived for one single day in the American Southwest. The Spanish living in the Southwest in 1846 stayed there, and became Americans by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
No current inhabitants of Mexico have ANY claim on even one single inch of the Southwest!
They are criminal invaders and colonizers, pure and simple.
Tucson Bump
Some of the most liberal people I know are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration. It wasn't always this way but they're realizing that it's not about humanitarian issues or jobs.
The reason they want to be here is because of the social spending - cut that off and they'll all go home.
Their cries for a separate nation are a joke - welfare, social security, food stamps - they'll all dry up without John Q Taxpayer.
Thanks, Axes!
All that you said is moot. They will at least, rule via the ballot box, CA and most likely other SW states in the not too distant future.
the great southwest united states would still be a sewer full of crime and corruption if it belonged to Mexico. It is not just the infrastructure but our laws and enforcement of those laws along with it being governed by the people instead of the elites is what made it different from Mexico and made it great. To bad our elites can't see our country is headed in the same direction as Mexico, governed by a few elites, mass poverty, crime corruption, briberyetc...don't enforce our immigration laws and we become a lawless Nation of lawless people...hasta la vist America..
"We are a nation of immigrants." -- countless talking heads
"This is not an amnesty plan." --President George W. Bush
"How would you like to pay $1.50 for a head of lettuce?" -- activist warning of "severe" price spikes if the cheap migrant labor source dries up
The author forgot the big one: "They're doing jobs Americans just won't do." - GWB
I wondered why their were profanities.
The first element?
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? ( links, blogs, quips, quotes, aggravating pictures ) is located here- click the Pic, and scroll backwards:
The other, somewhat interlocking element is this one:
"Thunder on the Border," click the picture:
That infamous"Mexican Flag Superior, American in Distress" is in the upper left corner...
See what his feelings about President Bush are here:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/opinion/Content?oid=oid:64798
He's a regular on PBS friday evening talk shows and a RAT.
This paper regularly berates the Minutemen, yet his opinion this week sounds like he is one of them.
Talk about hypocrites.
Okay, let's send them to Washington, D.C. Maybe we can get them to enforce the immigration laws that our own politicians won't do.
The welfare perks and the anchor babies - that is what gets them established in the first place.
Take away the "anchor baby" clause - The child born on our soil, of foreign parents, is not automatically a citizen. The child has PREFERENCE for entering the US as an adult and THEN applying for citizenship, after submitting to an examination of knowledge about the US Constitution, US history and English language. A formal petition would have to be entered while in the home country.
And the welfare perks - vastly reduced over the strenuous objections of Ted Kennedy in previous years - no longer available to US citizens without a "workfare" qualification, should similarly withheld from any immigrant who came to this country on other than political asylum grounds. There are many diverse ways of collecting on this mounting public cost, perhaps by imposing a designated payment on those persons who hire these itinerant workers.
It is obvious that the governing powers of Mexico have a conscious and active policy of exporting their hordes of poverty-stricken individuals, so could we not insist on a stipend for each of them from the Mexican government? Say, so many barrels of oil (which Mexico apparently has in great abundance) for each migrant that crosses in the US? The proceeds from the refining and distribution of the petroleum products would be designated for the social costs of supporting all these migrant people.
What would be the best solution, is for Mexico to assume the costs of raising the standard of living for its lowest economic strata, to the point where crossing into the US, with all its attendent woes for the migrants, is less attractive than staying in place in Mexico.
This may require a vastly overhauled economic order in Mexico, which by all objective standards, is a country well endowed with a wide variety of natural resources, and even some of the infrastructure necessary to construct a modern industrial society. China only a generation ago was vastly more backward than even Mexico, and the world can see clearly what a shift in priorities of monetary policy and fiscal management has done for them. And China is still very primitive in these accomplishments. But they do concentrate on educating and applying the skills of their people.
Left-to-right, left-to-right. Short, controlled bursts!
Trigger control, vs "spray & pray."
Because people with an average IQ of 90 or less cannot create modern cities - they can only take them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.