Rubbish!!!!!!! Which one of those Mexicans who would come illegally, would decide not to because "the U.S. apportioned more of its overall legal immigration admissions to Mexicans?"
That logic is saying that the solution to Mexican illegals is to keep increasing the number of Mexicans allowed until every Mexican who wants to come is allowed to come. That is merely legalizing open borders or advance legalization of all illegals.
But, after all, what the professor really wants to do is surrender American land and sovereignty to Mexico.
As for his history, the professor should save his Big Lie presentation for his uninformed and pliable students. To whom he can conceal such inconvenient facts as the following:
■ In 1821 - before Mexican independence - the Spanish Governor of Mexico granted Moses Austin a charter to settle Texas. He did this because the Mexico population lacked the right-stuff to settle and tame a wild and sparsely populated territory.
■ The story did not “begin in 1846,… when the U.S. provoked a war”, as the professor falsely claims. In 1836, Texas won its independence from Mexico - the same way Mexico won its independence from Spain. In 1845, the US granted Texas statehood.
■ The inhabiters of California were Spaniards ("Californios") who did not want to be part of the independent Mexico and openly rebelled. The Mexican presence there was not as settlers but troops sent to squelch the rebellion, collect taxes and seize church owned land. (The land was returned to the Church by President Lincoln.)
■ Mexico owes very its existence to the US. Mexicans lost their independence to France after Emperor Napoleon III's armed invasion and occupation during the US Civil War. The "Second Mexican Empire" (as the French rulers called it) only ended when after the Civil War the US sent troops to the border and asserted the Monroe Doctrine; the French troops were withdrawn; and the puppet government, forced to hold power without French troops, fell.
sounds like we should have let the French keep it LOL