Skip to comments.Phyllis Schlafly: Are Mexican Immigrants Assimilating Or Invading?
Posted on 11/30/2001 7:47:46 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, support for the United States has poured in from around the world, but the response from Mexico has been decidedly lukewarm. A Gallup poll reported that 78 percent of Mexicans oppose contributing troops to a multinational coalition, and we have seen no indication that Mexico will modify its oil policy of acting like a member of OPEC.
While there is no evidence that the 9/11 terrorists entered over the Mexican border, the trial in El Paso of an Iraqi smuggler produced evidence that he alone brought more than 1,000 Middle East illegals into the United States via that route, charging his clients $10,000 to $15,000 each. Border Patrol agents have confirmed the increase in illegal aliens coming from the Middle East across our southern border and the fact that Arabs pay up to $50,000 each for a "coyote" to smuggle them into the United States.
The 9/11 events have temporarily shelved the foolish proposals to grant amnesty to three million Mexicans illegally living in our country. Unfortunately, there is no indication that Mexico has retreated from its longtime goal of opening the U.S. border.
In Chicago on July 27, 1997, then Mexican President Ernesto Zedilla told the National Council of LaRaza, "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." He announced a Mexican constitutional amendment that purports to allow Mexicans to retain their Mexican nationality even though they become U.S. citizens (which is contrary to the U.S. naturalization oath).
When President Vicente Fox came to the United States this year, he reiterated this line, proclaiming that "the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders" and includes migrants living in the United States. He called for open borders and endorsed Mexico's new dual citizenship law.
Some Mexicans use the term "reconquista," which is Spanish for reconquest, to describe their desire to see California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas acquired by Mexico and named the new country of Aztlan. They are teaching their youth that the United States "stole" those areas from Mexico and that they should be "returned."
The United States acquired the Southwest a century and a half ago in three ways: part by the 1845 annexation agreement with Texas, which was then an independent republic, part ceded by Mexico in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo after the Mexican-American War, and part by the 1852 Gadsden Purchase.
Mexico's claim to the Southwest originated with the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, which drew an imaginary line on the map to divide the Western Hemisphere between Spain and Portugal. Because geography had so many unknowns at that time, Portugal got only Brazil (which is why Brazilians speak Portuguese).
Other countries never recognized this treaty, and Americans consider it ridiculous even to talk about giving the Southwest to Mexico. Most national borders all over the world have come about as the result of war.
Mexicans obviously have no thought of invading the Southwest with troops, so their hope is reconquista by migration, both legal and illegal. According to Mario Obledo, founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, "California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave."
An amnesty rally in the Los Angeles Sports Arena on June 10, 2000 attracted 25,000 people. In demanding amnesty for illegal Mexican aliens, the speakers proudly announced the names of at least a dozen unions in Los Angeles that are now headed by Mexicans.
Vicente Fox presented Mexico's Congress with a five-year development plan to eliminate the U.S.-Mexican border. He said he plans to serve "the 100 million Mexicans who now live in Mexico and the more than 18 million who live abroad," and to "strengthen our ability to protect and defend the rights of all Mexicans abroad."
Juan Hernandez, appointed by Fox as special liaison to Mexicans abroad, lobbies to get U.S. driver's licenses issued to illegal aliens and defends the Mexican government's issuance of desert survival kits to those sneaking across the border. On ABC's Nightline on June 7, he boasted: "We are betting that the Mexican-American population in the United States ... will think Mexico first."
Fox's five-year plan calls for building a larger consular presence in the United States, and this is already in operation. In U.S. areas with large Hispanic (including illegal) populations, the Mexican consul donates to the local public schools the same textbooks that are used in every elementary school in Mexico, grades 1 through 6.
The books, written in Spanish and including all academic subjects, teach that America "stole" the southwest from Mexico and that Mexico is entitled to take it back. The Mexican government considers these textbooks a symbol of Mexican national pride, guarantees a set to every Mexican child, and makes it a crime for anyone to sell them.
The only reason we learned about this Mexican plan is that one school in Santa Ana, California, decided to sell the books at a book fair and the local Hispanics kicked up a fuss about it. The school apologized to the Hispanics for selling the books, but should have apologized to the students for accepting the books in the first place.
The question we should ask our Mexican immigrant friends is, are you assimilating or invading?
I would have just said that his opinions are different than yours. I don't consider myself racist, disgusting or unamerican, yet I happen to be against immigration, as it is currently practiced. The majority of non-citizens taking up permanent residence in our nation today are illegals. Their first act upon entering our country is to break the law. I don't find this to be a desirable trait for someone entering my country.
On every anti-immigration post at FR it is inevitable that those against are branded racist and are reminded that this is a nation of immigrants. I'll ignore the racist thing (it's so over-used that it is now irrelevant) and agree with the 'nation of immigrants' thing. Past waves of immigrants were needed to populate this nation, but the wide open spaces are long gone. Past waves of immigrants assimilated within a generation or two but that is not the case anymore. Past waves of immigrants supported themselves but now we (taxpayers) do. The argument that these immigrants work to support themselves may be true if a single individual comes here, but saying that a non-skilled day laborer pays the way for himself and the large family that always follows is bull.
Immigration serves two purposes these days. It gives business and the wealthy a subsidized pool of hardworking laborers, maids, gardeners, day care workers, servants, etc. and it increases the numbers of supporters of the massive, centralized welfare state. The people that are allowing the invasion of our country are isolated from all the negative effects. Outside their gated communities however, the middle class pays the price. High taxes, crime, lowered wages and lack of entry-level oppurtunities for unskilled citizens are just some of the negative effects.
I see from other posts that you are American of mexican descent. That makes us fellow countrymen. Try to understand that I don't hate mexicans, eastern europeans, chinese or any other group seeking to come here. I do, however want to keep my country and my culture from becoming a mirror image of theirs. I'm sorry that other countries are badly off but it's not my fault and I damn sure shouldn't have to pay for it.
I content that this may very well be true since Mexicans can just walk here instead of having to be transported by ships. A quick read of history reveals that more (far more) nations have perrished due to invasion by immirgrants then by armies. Also a small deicated elite can control the actions of a far greater number so if only 5 or 10 percent of the Mexicans living here wanted Asland? Then they could get most of the others to go along.
"Oh and my native language is English so f*** off, slob."
33 posted on 11/30/01 12:39 PM Pacific by mvscal
Now I can understand deleting the reply with the actual "F-word", but on a heated thread where one poster is using personal attacks so often and freely, it seems fair that the asterisked "F***" version be allowed to remain, to let other freepers see what kind of character they are dealing with. Why is the Admin Moderator being used to shield an abusive and profane poster? Is this the proper role of the Admin Moderator?
Thanks. More out-in-the-open people like you, and maybe the people who didn't pay attention to the issue of illegal immigration would start doing so.
Apparently the Irish and European Catholics forgot to hand you any of their culture and values. Your statement shows an obvious lack of either.
I live in an area with many Hispanics. They have a wonderful culture and many of them are quite conservative and have high moral standards.
If you take a look around, you might notice some Irish Catholics who are quite liberal and totally lack any values.(ie:Ted Kennedy) Fine upstanding Irish Catholic!
There are good and bad apples in every group.
And he gets away with it, his worst excretions are merely deleted by the Admin Moderators, and on he goes to throw more turds at other freepers.
Sorry, but as thick as my skin is, I want to know why the Admin Moderators are being used to protect this filth spewing character.
If this is now a "forbidden discussion zone" on FR, then so be it.