Since US stole 1/2 of Mexico from the Mexicans. 1847... Wonder how many Mexicans were in what is now America at that time. What's with the downvotes, not as if it's not true.
Singling out the US as some sort of unprecedented evil for doing what everybody else has always done is likely the cause of the downvotes.
Touchy. I never did that. But you assume. I am simply pointing out that the Western States were Mexican. So for Mexicans to come to America to inhabit them is only natural. Human immigration is also as old as human history.
It's the Americans who have a problem with the Mexicans. Mexicans have no problem with the fact that the US stole a bunch of their territory a mere 150 years ago. They allow millions of Americans in to their country each year.
The Apache would like a word with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_de_Nuca
I can't imagine how miserable it must have been for people used to generally warm and sunny climes to try and eke out an existence in such a cool, wet, northerly place.
That's an inherently collectivist premise. You're claiming that people are somehow connected to, or tied to arbitrary geographic boundaries. It's absurd and an insult to the people that live there.
You might as well claim that Americans of Irish heritage, are inherently prone to want to return to Ireland, as if drawn by some kind of ancestral magnet. That's obviously not the case. Or you could just skip to the logical conclusion on your premise: Mexicans must all return to Africa, it's only natural since that's where all of humanity originated.
Honestly, I'm kind of amazed with how little political violence there is (like, zero) around the US-Mexico border considering the history here. I also tend to share your opinion about the war, which is pretty much Lincoln and Ulysses S Grant's opinion about the war, which is that it was unjust.
Look at the border wars that go on out there in the world. Where is our border war? There isn't one. Mexican immigrants want to peacefully live and work in the territories that were (again, I'd say "in my opinion", but instead let's say "Lincoln and Grant's opinion") pretty egregiously annexed through force with no justification.
To me, this peaceful border is a giant gift that the US treats like some kind of curse. The biggest problem as far as I see it is a violent drug cartel war that (in my opinion, not Lincoln or Grant's opinion) is at least to some extent a product of a very misguided drug policy in the US.
Beyond that, I'd prefer to see us mimize the relevance of this border. And at this point, data suggests there won't be some mass movement north anyway (for all I know, you might start seeing more US citizens moving south).
The Republican Heritage foundation proposed Obamacare in 1994. Republican Mitt Romney pushed Obamacare into law in Massachusetts in 2004. But when Obama did it in 2010, Republicans became nasty and viciously opposed forever to Obamacare.
Likewise with Republicans Lincoln and Grant. The Republicans were all for annexing the southwest in 1846. Their first presidential candidate was John Charles Frémont who led the fight for the Bear Flag Republic against the Mexicans. But let Democratic president James Knox Polk take credit and the Republicans are implacably against it forever.
These things have all happened before and they will happen again. Typical Republicans.
"I'm kind of amazed with how little political violence there is (like, zero) around the US-Mexico border"
There's zero nationalistic violence because Mexicans aren't inclined to political violence over abstract questions. Take their land and the streets will run with blood but move the border and change which capital collects their taxes and they're tranquil. It's the exact opposite of the 'refugees' that Europe is taking.
There's a fair bit of political violence on the Mexican border over America's Drug War, though. It's not ISIS level but more than enough fighting for my tastes.
The US stole its original territory from England, who had stolen it from the previous inhabitants. The US continued that trend--taking sovereignty over territory via application of force--until hitting the Mississippi. Then, a rare purchase agreement between the US and Napoleon, who had taken land from Spain, who had taken it from rebels, who had taken it from Spain, who had taken it from a previous iteration of France, who had, of course, taken it from the previous inhabitants.
Southwest of Louisiana, that land was added to the US by frequent petitions to join the federation. Previously independent, taken by rebellion from Mexico, who had previously taken it by rebellion from Spain and France, who had taken it from the previous inhabitants.
Mexico took this badly, and in the ensuing war with the US, Alta California changed sovereignty to the US, with monetary compensation to Mexico. The land was previously held by rebels who objected to war with the US, who took it from Mexico, who took it from Spain, who, as usual, took it from the people who had already been living there.
So let's not argue too much about who stole what from whom. The elites like to redraw the maps, as the people on the actual land care little for the border invisibly whooshing over their heads.
And really, the US did pay Mexico $15M (in 1848-1853) for it, even though Mexico had already lost control of much of it to rebels and malcontents, just like what happened in Texas. A bit later, the US purchased Mesilla from Mexico, and there is the modern border.
I doubt Americans would care much about Mexican immigration if our politicians had not selected immigrants as a scapegoat group. They like to blame unemployment on worker competition instead of capital flight, because that makes it look less like their fault.
About 2-300k total population in CA, NM, AZ, NV, UT, and CO. That was well under the population of several native tribes on the same land.
And the ones in NM were not even officially Mexicans; they were loyal to the Spanish crown and refused to pay taxes to Mexico City. When General Kearny arrived in Santa Fe '46, there was a parade instead of a battle because Mexico and the Navaho would have to stop raiding them now they were American.
The Mexican claim to America's southwest was just a line on a map -- total indefensible and non credible. In fact, it was just like America's border enforcement today.
And no Mexico did not start the war, America stole a bunch of their territory, Texas, by annexing it. Texas, the Lone Star Republic which essentially wanted to be its own country. That usually leads to war.
Mexico has no greater claim over that land, than did Spain before it. You might as well say Mexico stole nearly all of their current land from native tribes that existed there thousands of years ago.
To paraphrase Lincoln: "can you inform us of the actual spot on our soil where US blood was spilled?"
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutio...
Mexico attacked and defeated America. At first.
Had Mexico not gone to war with Texas and the USA, it is very likely it still would have lost all that territory to rebellion.
The secession tension grew into Mexico's first civil war (Reform War of 1857-1861), which ended just as the USA-CSA civil war (1861-1865) was starting.
And if we're talking "at gun point", Guadalupe-Hidalgo was negotiated with USA occupying Mexico City. There was serious consideration given to annexing all of Mexico. Really, one major reason Mexico still exists at all is good ol' USA racism: all those Indians and mixed-race people would get to vote and elect their own representatives. Also, would the Mexican states be slave states or free states? So the USA pretty much just took only as much land as it could fill up with free white people, and paid off the loser.
And so they each got to have their own separate civil wars, instead of one big one.