Replies

Some responses:

Blaming Mexico for what Pancho Villa did 90 years ago

Villa is still regarded in Mexico as a hero for the Columbus raid and, in general, "standing up to the gringos". Since his activities are regarded in Mexico as being integral to the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1921, along with Emiliano Zapata, he does stand for the "spirit" and attitude of Mexicans to this day. There is now a statue of him in my hometown of Tucson, a statue given to the city by the Mexican government as a sort of slap in the face which the pathetic Tucson city council simply took. Would the citizens of Paris accept a statue of an SS general given by the German government as a gesture of "friendship"? The man murdered Americans and burned an American town because Wilson sided with Carranza. That would endear him to Americans because....What? And yet this guy is regarded in Mexico and by Mexicans here as a symbol of their country. So that's why I mention him.

Why mention the Zimmerman letter? Mexico, as far as I know, never even saw it. It was intercepted by British intelligence, and disclosed to Wilson. The point is, at the time, no one, even Wilson, had a hard time believing they might take the Germans up on the offer ("That it means to stir up enemies against us at our very doors the intercepted [Zimmermann] note to the German Minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence" - from Wilson's address to Congress). The loss of Alta California, Tejas, and Nueva Mexico was still very much on their minds. To give you an idea of attitudes at the time (1915), read this little excerpt from the Handbook of Texas Online: The Plan of San Diego (1915) . Note the charming line about what was to be done to all white males over 16. Read the whole thing. In many ways, antagonism towards Mexicans and Mexico in the Southwest for the past 80 years traces to these events.

Gosh, that wasn't my recollection at all. When did Fox tell us to "pound sand"?

You must not have been paying attention. Perhaps Fox didn't explicitly tell us to pound sand, but the Mexican people (and Mexican Congress) did. Here was Gregory Rodriguez' article on it, published in the Los Angeles Times in October of 2001: Mexico, Fair-Weather Friend . You know, Greg's never been the same again. For the first time in his life, he realized that Mexico had no intention of being a First World nation, that they really were just buddying up to the U.S. for the extra cookies it represented. Quite a letdown for him.

"Mexico fought with the Allies" - Well, if you count Esquadron 201 as a big deal (300 whole men...). The first - and only - time that Mexicans have fought on foreign soil. Read about the WWII Mexican war effort: WWII Comes to Mexico . Mexico's help during WWII was really about the Bracero's and oil in Vera Cruz. The effect of the Bracero program is the mass immigration of Mexicans seen today. The oil is probably the reason that mass "immigration" is still tolerated. Among other sordid reasons.

As for your statements regarding their silly claims of the Southwest (which you know as well as I are nothing but empty words)

The "silly claims" are coming true by virtue of demographic reality. They know it (do a web search on the name "David Hayes-Bautista") and see it as a point of pride - they managed to get into the U.S. and then managed to outbreed the gringos (that would be us). If you're the majority, you make the rules (Constitution? You mean the Mexican Constitution, Senor?). California is going to be ethnically Mexican in 20 years (they are now 50% of births here). What's so empty about that claim?

But is it really necessary to badmouth Mexico's government and people as well?

Mexico's government? Ever been there? I grew up next to the joint. Spoke Spanish before I was 15. Learned it from a teacher who was born in Hermosillo. My cousins are Mexican ("Gueros", or whites, their father of Spaniard descent). One thing I learned before I was 20: The Mexican government is really an organized criminal enterprise, available to the highest bidder. The police? Roving gangs, competing with each other and the Federal Judicial Police to see who can commit the most depraved acts. Ever seen the movie Traffic? I thought it went a little light. The stories I heard were far worse than those depicted (think Enrique Camarena). That's a major reason to badmouth the Mexican "government".

Mexico needs about another two centuries to develop some semblance of civil society. It might never happen. When you go from 35 million people in 1960 to 100 million people in 2000, it's hard to catch up. Especially if you had a bad society to start with. But hey, if you have a bunch of saps next door that you can exploit...

Mexico is not a "friendly country". It is a country which has to put up with us, so they figure they might as well get something out of the deal. But hey, if they can send their foot soldiers north, and get the welfare system to pay for more "Mexicans Abroad" as Fox puts it, maybe they can get more out of the deal then they thought. Right now, it looks like that's the case.

Maybe we are closer in thought if you'd like to see the Guard on the border. This much I can tell you: even now, it won't happen. But that's a whole other discussion...

My family have been Arizona Republicans since the 1940's, and Republicans in general since the 1850's. We knew the Goldwater's but only as acquaintances. My sister was a Goldwater girl from Arizona at the '64 convention (no, she didn't meet Hillary). It's nice to see someone with your handle. No matter what people say about Barry, we always thought he represented the best of Arizona. Hell, back then, we had Democrats like Morris Udall, who was actually an upstanding guy (boy, the flame gonna start now...). Now we have pygmys (well, Jon Kyl seems to be reputable). I don't give a damn how ditsy Goldwater became in his old age. There wouldn't be a goddamn modern conservative movement without him.

Regulator, I'll have to defer to you on Mexico's history and government, you certainly have been more exposed to it than I have. I visited Mexico a couple of times in the 1980s (like you, I have Mexican cousins, since my aunt married a Mexican, but they have since moved to the U.S.), but have never lived in Mexico (nor in the Southwest, for that matter). So if you tell me that Pancho Villa is more akin to George Washington than to Billy the Kid in the eyes of most Mexicans, then I stand corrected. But my point is that if you were to separate countries into "friendly" and "unfriendly" camps, Mexico would be in the "friendly" camp more often that not since the 1920s. Mexico was our ally during the Cold War, and ten years ago actually agreed to eliminate tariffs on most U.S. products as part of NAFTA (something very few of our allies would be willing to do). Now, before I get flamed again, I am not implying that Mexico was our Cold-War ally and eliminated most of its tariffs because it's government is so big-hearted and loves us so much. Of course Mexico did it for their own selfish interests, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Mexican government was merely looking after number one. But isn't that how it usually works in international relations? When a country's interests are in line with our own, it will support us, and if it isn't it will not. The problem with Mexico is that it usually supports us when it's unavoidable or when they get something out of it as well. And, returning to the original thread, it is certainly in Mexico's self interest to make sure that guys who came across the border don't mount terrorist attacks against us. So my point isn't that Mexico is as good a friend as Great Britain or Israel, but that it ain't China either, and will help out when it's in it's in its interest to do so.

As for how demographic changes could make the Southwest a majority-Mexican area in a few years, I certainly can't argue with you on that. Even if illegal immigration was stopped completely (which as I have stated ad nauseum, I absolutely support, and believe we need to put National Guardsmen right on the border if necessary), higher birthrates among Mexican-Americans makes this a certainty---it's a matter of when, not if. But I do not equate having a Mexican-American majority in California with having California become one of the United Mexican States. And if we can make Mexican-Americans see that their cultural values are more attuned with those of the Republican Party than with those of the Democrats, and we reduce the verbal animosity towards Mexicans, we can reclaim Califoria as the Republican stronghold it has traditionally been. For the record, of course I know California has voted exclusively for FeinBoxer and ClintonGore since the early 90s, but California voted for the GOP presidential candidate in 9 out of 10 elections from 1952 to 1988---the lone exception being, unfortunately, when our hero Barry Goldwater started the modern conservative movement in 1964.