The Ethnicization of Immigration Reform: It May Hurt More than Help.

by

Should you support a cause for fellow human beings  solely on account them having the same race, religion, ethnicity, or any other immutable characteristics as yourself?  Yes, sure, but with some caution. As you will see, I believe that several  activists’ ethnocentric advocacy for Comprehensive Immigration Reform(CIR from here on out) has and will inadvertently hinder the chances of reform to be passed.

The damage of ethnicization to CIR is clearly brought to light from the Latina Lista publication, which superficially appears to be ethnocentric as it relates to CIR but in reality is not.

Although Latina Lista is purposely meant to provide a perspective on issues through the lens of a Latina, namely the author Marisa Trevino, the latter’s actual discussion of the issue of CIR cannot be said to be ethnocentric(i.e. it should be done just because those benefiting from CIR are Latina and Marisa is a Latina); in fact, her reasons provided for passing CIR are founded upon, simply: 1)the desire to invaluably improve the lives of millions of human beings and 2)it would be a boon to all people of the United States.

Somewhat Ironically, I was able to come up with this prior conclusion because of a particularly rude commentator, cookie, who accused Latina Lista of the following: “Marisa, of course you aren’t going to admit in your writings that you advocate for illegal aliens because of an ethnocentric agenda, duh!” This answer was in response to Marisa’s unequivocal prior response: “On this site, or anywhere in my writings on the issue of illegal immigration or immigration,I  have  never advocated that undocumented immigrants be legalized because I happen to share a common ancestry with the majority of them.”

Cookie’s quote can accurately be characterized as a case of “reading into it too much”. But, although I am loathe to give credit to someone so rude and without empathy, her erroneous assumption on Marisa is not so erroneous when one looks at other pro-CIR blogs. (side note: the blogs that I am about to mention would not allow a person such as Cookie to comment on their entries.  If they did allow that, Marisa, who appears to adhere to the same principles of free speech that permit her to speak her mind, would probably not have to deal with Cookie-type people in the first place).

Polarization: Pulling out the Race Card Never Putting It Away

It is important to note that, although CIR is inextricably linked to race/ethnicity because of the ethnic makeup of the majority of those that would benefit from it are Latinos/Hispanics, at its core it is a Human Rights and Logical-betterment for all of the U.S.A issue.

Some have strayed away from CIR’s core. Nezua, at the Unapologetic Mexican, is one of those. In his Glosario(Glossary), Nezua defines what a “Wite Knight” is:

“The Wite Knight is not truly interested in helping you. It only appears that way. They are actually intoxicated with the bounce of their steed and the rhythmic rise and fall of their own gonads. The Wite Knight constantly craves a reason to get up on that horse and ride. It is where they can look down on all their marvelous works and the people they have rescued. The people are, in fact, their steed. It is you they ride. And just when you think they are there to help you be free, they dig a spur into your side.”

This above-statement is not directly in reference to CIR, yet a principal theme throughout Nezua’s site is Immigration. Regardless of the validity of the “wite knight” theory, it’s effect upon a “white”(around 65% if U.S. population, according to the CIA factbook) reader who is does not subscribe to the theory would be one of division.

To the actual validity of the broad “wite knight theory”:(because it clearly is not just race-based)–it is an attack upon the predominant economic system in the world–Capitalism. There are plenty of do-gooders in the United States, white and non-white. Nonetheless, a reality of life here is that individuals require a certain level of economic stability if they are to be able to “help” others. Most people will, if it comes to a choice between improving their own life at the expense of another’s, choose the former. For those that do this but hold onto a holier-than-thou- aura, something like Nezua’s scorn may be called for. But it is not exclusive to any particular race. It is a human characteristic.*However, the passing of CIR will not infringe upon  human tendency of oneupmanship because it would benefit all of us.

(*In the U.S., there is clearly white to non-white racism. What is not clear is how much race is a factor as opposed to economics in causing the socio-economic divide between certain minority groups and the majority)

The Crass Change.org Activist

I first came across Prerna Lal when she guest blogged for Long Island Wins. Intrigued by the singular argument she made there(how USA today’s use of “illegal student” was inaccurate and dangerous), I marched on to her personal blog.

On this particular post, Prerna erroneously transforms the Dream Act(legislation that would legalize individuals who were arrived in the U.S. as minors without the proper immigration status) into a full-out race/oppressor issue:

But it is not our ‘allies’ that I am too concerned about nowadays. We know how to use them and they know how to use us–it is an exploitation based on a symbiotic relationship. I am more concerned about those in our ranks who choose to do nothing

She then quotes Martin Luther King Jr(MLK): “freedom is never voluntarily given up by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

First, the “allies” that are referred to are presumably mostly white professionals. Accordingly, it is implied that no good can possibly be done by white professionals without there being some hidden motive of oppression; i.e. what’s in it for them?. And then the quote by MLK. The end of segregation of African Americans  is not analogous to Comprehensive Immigration Reform(which includes the dream act). The current dilemma of millions of undocumented is not a direct result of any distinct “oppressor”. Sure, one can posit the broad point that people came here because of U.S. exploitation abroad, etc, but it is still different.

Many of those the undocumented that reside in the U.S.  truly came here voluntarily. Many, in fact, could have survived in their home country. This is not oppression like that of what African Americans faced before the civil rights era. Of course,  there is a distinction for the potential beneficiaries of the Dream Act.

They(colloquially referred to as the dreamers) were minors and therefore could not have had a choice in coming here. In fact, one persuasive argument for the passing of the dream act is how our immigration law treats the children(under 21) of legal immigrants: the status of the parents is automatically conferred upon the children, even if the latter had no choice. Therefore, the children of” legal” and “illegal” immigrants are indistinguishable. That is a travesty of justice, and could be a case of oppression. But messages like that of Nezua and Prerna, although not necessarily incorrect, play off the racism embedded in peoples’ hearts and therefore create more opposition to an issue–Comprehensive Immigration Reform–that is not, at its core, about race.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

61 Responses to “The Ethnicization of Immigration Reform: It May Hurt More than Help.”

  1. cookie Says:

    Byran, I find it very offensive that you chose to blog about me in a negative way but you completely give Evelyn’s racist rantings in Latina Lista a pass. And she IS racist and anti-white.

    The bug I have up my behind about these far left goons is that they are under the delusion that their racism against whites is ok because, after all, they are just “telling the truth” and fighting for “justice and equality.” Racism is racism, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. You can put lipstick on a pig, but IT IS STILL A PIG! Constantly demeaning one particular group over historical events of the past which they and in most cases even their own ancestors had nothing to do with, ignoring all of the positive aspects and contributions of that group is RACISM, staight up! If one were to do the same thing to blacks, Latinos, any other group, it would be seen as racism, no questions asked. But because this hatred is against whites, then it is explained away, justified, mitigated and that is BS! The hard-core far left is just as racist and hostile towards Euro-Americans and Western culture/civilization as the far right is towards “people of color.” Let’s just drop the pretense that it is anything other than what it is: a thinly veiled excuse to vent hatred and resentment on a group of people due to their skin color. And we’re supposed to like it and excuse it. NO THANKS!

    So since you chose to call me out publicley on your blog, then you should also be calling out Evelyn, and not just this namby-pamby, “oh, honey, this doesn’t do anything for our cause” statement that you made to her. In otherwords you are telling Evelyn to try to keep her hatred and resentment of Euro-Americans under wraps until we get what we want.

    Will you be fair and blog about the ugly side of the pro-illegals which is Evelyn’s pure unadulterated hatred of Americans of white European heritage and her reconquista agenda? I’ll we waiting.

  2. cookie Says:

    I see you also think that Evelyn’s historical references about “stolen land” was the entire truth. Well chomp on this for awhile. I posted this in Latina Lista but it is lengthy so Marisa probably won’t post it.

    It seems that those who claim that Mexico has some sort of right to the Southwest of the United States, really don’t know what they are talking about. They believe Mexican Nationals have the “right” to cross International Land Boundaries without the need of authorization. They claim that all Peoples living North of the Rio Grand River in the Territories Mexico gained when it won its Independence from Spain were Colonized by Spanish and Mexican Nationals, but what they fail to recognize is that it was only the border area that was scantily populated. In Texas, there were less than 3,000 Mexicans living North of the Rio Grand, approximately 6,000 Californios living in mostly Southern California or a few missions along the coast. The rest of the territories of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho had less than 9,000 living mostly along the New Mexico and Arizona river region of the Rio Grand.

    Will they also admit that many Mexican Nationals abandoned the land grants they were granted by either Spain or Mexico at the time due to Indian raids on their lands?? At this point in time, abandoned land grants were auctioned off by the Government of Mexico and sold for mere pennies on the dollar.
    By 1840 most of the grants had been abandoned. The most blatant land grab occurred in 1844. Far to the south, in the port of the Guaymas, the Mexican government declared that the mission lands of Tumacacori had been abandoned and auctioned them off for five hundred pesos to Francisco Alejandro Aguilar.
    This is where Aminta Zárate comes in, please read the entire article linked here.
    She is 86, a widow of prodigious memory and unswerving will. Over the past 27 years, she has gone to court, spoken with senators, met with ambassadors, petitioned presidents. And now the former elementary school cafeteria manager has joined forces with a San Diego law professor, demanding more than $2 billion from Mexico on behalf of her group, the Asociación de Reclamantes, or Association of Land Claimants.

    “It’s more than money,” Zárate said on a recent Saturday morning, seated inside a small office attached to her beige brick house in this quiet town of 45,000 residents. “I want justice for what they’ve done to our ancestors, that’s what I want.”

    The story is an odd historical footnote, overlooked in textbooks and unspoken in the classrooms of south Texas. But it has been passed down, like a burning torch, from generation to generation among the descendants of the original European settlers of this harsh, flat region on the U.S.-Mexico border – land that belonged to Spain, then Mexico, then the United States. The Cárdenas and the Cantus and the Ballis, the Longorias and the Cavazos and the Zárates, families whose ancestors never crossed the border. Rather, they like to say, the border crossed them, in 1848, after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.(emphasis is mine)

    Their petition boils down to this: In 1941, Mexico signed a treaty with the United States, agreeing to compensate 433 south Texas families for the loss of 12 million acres between the Rio Grande and Nueces rivers. The land once belonged to their ancestors and was part of Mexico, then became U.S. territory when the 1848 treaty was signed. But Mexico never did pay – and it shows no signs it will.
    But wait, there’s more:
    In 1923, the United States and Mexico established a General Claims Commission to settle outstanding claims between the two countries rising from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

    Mexican government officials reached out in south Texas among the population of Mexican origin, soliciting claims for loss of property and other injuries, and presented them as Mexican claims to the commission. It was a tactic, some say, to offset U.S. claims.

    The United States presented 2,781 claims against Mexico, worth $513 million, on behalf of its citizens, many of whom had lost oil wells in Mexico. Mexico presented 836 claims against the United States, for $245 million; of those, 433 were in south Texas, representing 12 million acres valued $193.6 million. San Juan Carricitos, Zárate’s ancestral land, was among the claims.

    For the next 16 years, nothing was done. Then, in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, anxious to prevent Mexico from joining the Axis powers, proposed an arrangement: The two countries would swap claims, and each would treat the claims as a domestic issue.

    It was a good deal for Mexico, given the difference in sums. The United States asked for an additional $40 million from Mexico, but agreed to pay all the outstanding claims lodged by U.S. citizens against Mexico.

    Mexico, in turn, agreed to pay the claims that had originally been aimed at the United States, including the Texas land grant claims.

    By 1948, the United States had paid off its claims. Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho had signed a decree in 1941 calling for legislation to provide compensation for its claimants. But the law was never passed.

    “The decree was enacted, and nothing happened after that,” said Vargas, of the University of San Diego. “That is certainly a constitutional violation.”
    It seems Mexico owes some money and those who insist that this land was ‘Stolen’ had better re-evaluate their argument to reflect the Government in which they should be arguing.

  3. bjohns15 Says:

    Hello Cookie:

    To your first comment:

    This whole entry’s purpose was to state how arguments such as Evelyn’s(i.e. the heavy focus on race, particularly the white privilege theory), in the context of Immigration Reform, is damaging for the purposes of garnering enough popular support to pass Immigration Reform. As to not naming Evelyn, the principal subjects of this entry were blog authors, not commentators.

    You asked: “Will you be fair and blog about the ugly side of the pro-illegals which is Evelyn’s pure unadulterated hatred of Americans of white European heritage and her reconquista agenda?”

    Maybe some day I will, but I believe there is a very small minority of whom you refer to as “pro-illegals” that have unadulterated hatred of Americans of white European heritage, and even less that seriously consider any type of reconquista.

    As to your second comment:

    Thank you for the lengthy historical research on Mexico. You cannot assume that I took what Evelyn said about Mexico’s history as the entire truth. I ceded that point to her because, frankly, it was extraneous to the main point that I was arguing. Furthermore, I NEVER accept anything that anyone says as the truth unless I do the research myself. In the case of my response to evelyn, I simply didn’t feel like doing the research.

  4. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    Bryan, I agree that it makes no sense to alienate potential white allies on many issues including CIR. But that does not mean that there is no such thing as the “white night.” I don’t read the unapologetic Mexican a whole lot so maybe he is generalizing to all white people, in that case that he is quite wrong. But I think he is talking about a certain type of white person that we Mexicans can clearly identify based on our circumstances. To act like white power in the context of American history is merely the same as discrimination by anyone or any group ignores the historical reality of how white Americans have interacted with Mexicans over time. These issues are certainly all over the globe thanks to all those crazy “isms” that are now leftist staples (i.e. colonialism, imperialism, capitalism) as well as the mission civilisatrice ideology promoted by many a European power. I don’t think the white knight concept is a theory that needs to be proven at this point.

    All that said, let me reiterate, I do think that it is a bad idea to alienate people of any color or creed. That does not mean that criticism that is race-based with respect to problems that still exist between people of color and white people should not ever be aired. In fact there are other racial issues that have to be pointed out. Remember white people refers generally to non-minority whites. But there are all kinds of white people that identify as Mexican that are also undocumented (I know a few), and many of them are seriously racist. Thus, I think you chose the right word in your title–ethnicization.

    I think the race and ethnicity is a part of many people’s issue with CIR. That does not mean that the economic arguments on both sides are not central, but there is a lot of mixing; so you shouldn’t be surprised that many Latinos are responding with hardened racial/ethnic perspectives given the kind of crap going on with white vigilante groups and racist vitriol against undocumented people in the rest of the blogosphere. I don’t share such perspectives but they are not completely irrational either. You also shouldn’t be surprised by the tone of a blogger whose site is called the ***Unapologetic*** Mexican.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      Hey Rey,

      I’m not surprised about the tone of people like Unapologetic Mexican, nor do I think it is necessarily unjustified. I should have prefaced this post with this: my impression from reading these sites was alienation. In fact, Nezua called me(well almost) a “wite knight”. So it is a bit of an extrapolation on my part that others’, outside of the white vigilante groups, would similarly be alienated and, not really being into the issues(like most Americans) would either A) be indifferent or B) go against CIR. It’s a theory without a lot of concrete proof.

      I’ll also admit that I am not a scholar on race in America, or anywhere else for that matter, so everything I say about it is subject to annihilation.

      But you mentioned that many have “hardened racial/ethnic perspectives” because, in part, due to white vigilante hooligans. Anything Hardened is bound to more likely than not prevent progress.

  5. cookie Says:

    Well Bryan, you can remain in denial all you want but most Hispanics in this country want amnesty/legalization for illegal aliens because the majority of them are also Mexicans/Latinos. It is an ethnocentric, racist and anti-American agenda because it is not in the best interests of this country to legalize the 12-20 million illegals in our country. Our unemployment rate is growing and our resources are being stretched thin trying to care for all of them. We simply cannot keep up with their social costs and our overcrowded schools, jails and hospitals and the loss of jobs to Americans because they are undercutting them with less pay (yes, the employers are just as guilty). I don’t consider them all to be serious criminals but enough of them do commit serious crimes and commit I.D. fraud to work. Their U.S. born children are costing us a fortune when if the parents weren’t here in the first place that wouldn’t be an issue.

    Marisa is all about Latino this and Latino that. She can’t write a blog and talk about Latinos as just being Americans. No, she always has to bring up their ethnicitiy. It is always with a victimhood mindset also. She is not alone on this. There are millions of Hispanics in this country just like her and we should legalize more of them? No, thanks. We need Americans who put this country first and not their tribal/ethnic group.

    As for Evelyn, you would be surprise how many of Mexican heritage in this country and in Mexico that think like her aka the stolen land BS! Evelyn, just takes it to a new high of racism against whites that’s all. So yes, you should blog about it but you won’t as you appear to be on the pro-illegal side.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      Funny thing about Immigration Laws is that, unlike the majority of other fields of law, the government can do pretty much whatever it pleases in changing it. SO, if there is an “amnesty”, I wouldn’t even be pro-illegal, I’d be pro-legal, and you would be pro-illegal because surely you wouldn’t be happy about that law being passed.

  6. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    As for cookie’s Mexico argument, hmmm I think that the squatter’s right to land as a theory of national expansion is precisely the problem. Interesting to see that Manifest Desiny is alive and well.

    I just drove through Wyoming and South Dakota recently–still pretty empty. I guess the U.S. has no claim to it…

    Immigration is the only thing that is going to keep the U.S. an economic power. Legalization will get us more money in the long run: http://cockroachpeople.com/?p=1063

  7. cookie Says:

    Yes, LEGAL immigration in controlled numbers has always been a positive for our country. No one is arguing that point. Illegal immigration is an entirely diffferent issue. These are people who had no respect for our borders and laws and they came by the millions! Rewarding unlawful behavior is never a good thing and we don’t need all of these illegals. If we have jobs that Americans won’t do that is what we have LEGAL immigration for.

  8. cookie Says:

    One more thing. If we rewarded all these illegals with amnesty or whatever you want to call it by allowing them to remain in our country it would benefit mostly one ethnic group. I thought our country was about diversity and being fair to immigrants from all ethnic groups rather than favoring one in particular?

  9. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    Cookie:
    LEGAL immigration is broken; it violates all the laws of supply an demand.

    One person’s “illegal” is another person’s “settler” or “pioneer.” I’m native; so you’ll get no sympathy here.

    p.s. this is incoherent: “Hispanics in this country want amnesty/legalization for illegal aliens because the majority of them are also Mexicans/Latinos.”

  10. Liquid Reigns Says:

    As for cookie’s Mexico argument, hmmm I think that the squatter’s right to land as a theory of national expansion is precisely the problem. Interesting to see that Manifest Desiny is alive and well.

    I guess that the States in Mexico that were trying to secede at the time didn’t matter? Texas actually seceded and was recognized as its own independent nation. The Alamo comes to mind here. Besides, Manifest Destiny wasn’t even a term until 1845, much after Texas gained its Independence.

    I just drove through Wyoming and South Dakota recently–still pretty empty. I guess the U.S. has no claim to it…

    What gave Mexico the right to claim lands that were held by Spain?

    LEGAL immigration is broken; it violates all the laws of supply an demand.

    Why is it broken? Supply and demand of people? So you are equating people to commodity? Because there is open space in this country (your trip through Wyoming and South Dakota) we should allow more people in to fill the voids?

  11. Liquid Reigns Says:

    I’m native; so you’ll get no sympathy here.

    Native to what? Spain? Lopez-Calderon sure aren’t Native American surnames. I”m just sayin. Must be that “Radical Chicano” thing you claim to have.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      Liquid Reigns; I’m not sure what, exactly, Rey was referring to when he said “i’m a native”, but if, for one moment, you take note of the fact that the majority of “hispanics/latinos” are Mestizo(Spanish/Indigenous), it is quite possible that Rey is a “native”, or at least partly so.

  12. Liquid Reigns Says:

    By the same token, I, too, am Native, although not Hispanic/Latino, nor Mestizo. My “partly so” is from the Dakotas. Please, don’t think you need to explain someone else’s comments.

  13. Liquid Reigns Says:

    I don’t mean it in a bad way, it looks as if you are chiding me about Rey’s roots, I’m no child. I have been around the block a time or two in this immigration debate, in fact, look me up on Latina Lista and Change.

  14. cookie Says:

    Rey, The only “supply and demand” there is, is the demand for cheap illegal labor by the employers, not because they can’t find Americans or legal workers at a fair wage to fill most jobs in this country. The supply is the millions of illegal aliens from south of our border who were more than happy to violate our immigration and labor laws to help these employers cut our throats for their own personal gain. So, NO our legal immigration laws are not broken. Even if they were, one has to wait for laws to be changed. You just don’t violate them because you think they are broken! An illegal alien is not a settler nor a pioneer. They are immigration lawbreakers so don’t try to sugarcoat it.

    What is “incoherent” about stating the FACT that the reason that most Hispanics want amnesty for illegal aliens is because these illegals are of the same ethnicity as themselves? In fact, many if not most Hispanic-Americans are from Mexican ancestry and most illegals are from Mexico. Do you really think we are stupid?

  15. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    “I guess that the States in Mexico that were trying to secede at the time didn’t matter? Texas actually seceded and was recognized as its own independent nation. The Alamo comes to mind here. Besides, Manifest Destiny wasn’t even a term until 1845, much after Texas gained its Independence.”

    Get your facts straight. Manifest Destiny was coined in 1845 precisely to promote the annexation of Texas. It was a term that crystallized the attitude of settlers, i.e. illegals, that refused to obey the laws of Mexico and who already operated under the pioneer mentality which many were describing as “divine destiny” as early as 1839.

    “Why is it broken? Supply and demand of people? So you are equating people to commodity? Because there is open space in this country (your trip through Wyoming and South Dakota) we should allow more people in to fill the voids?”

    It’s called economics (it’s a science). Labor obeys the law of supply and demand. That’s been clear at least since Denham and Adam Smith. My point about the empty areas (not voids incidentally) was in response to the “mexico wasn’t using it so we deserved to take it” argument raised previously. You were defending cookie’s comments but failed to notice what was actually said. Then, ironically, you were angered by Bryan’s defense of my comment.

    As for my native ancestry, you must not know many of us if you think we are all named Chief White Cloud. Too many John Wayne movies?

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      Get your facts straight. Manifest Destiny was coined in 1845 precisely to promote the annexation of Texas. It was a term that crystallized the attitude of settlers, i.e. illegals, that refused to obey the laws of Mexico and who already operated under the pioneer mentality which many were describing as “divine destiny” as early as 1839.

      My facts are straight, Texas was an independent Republic starting in 1836. Mexico no longer had control, nor ownership of said Republic at the time. The coining of “Manifest Destiny” was actually used in conjunction with the Oregon territory and the boundary dispute with Great Britain. Polk and the Democrats simply added Texas to it since Texas itself wanted to become part of the USA, not that the USA was attempting to “take” Texas from Mexico.

      It’s called economics (it’s a science). Labor obeys the law of supply and demand. That’s been clear at least since Denham and Adam Smith.

      But neither of them called for the free movement of People, in the sense that you are attempting to have them be commodities. “Supply and Demand” based on the theory of Denham-Steuart only influenced the price of the commodity, the “labor theory of value”. If you truly want an understanding of Adam Smith, I suggest you follow this blog link Adam Smith’s Lost Legacy, Gavin Kennedy is a highly recognized scholar on Adam Smith.

      As for my native ancestry, you must not know many of us if you think we are all named Chief White Cloud. Too many John Wayne movies?

      I guess your Spanish surnames have no recognition? By the same token, I too am Native, but, to the area within the USA, if you saw me you would think I was white. Too much stereotyping, I guess.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      It was a term that crystallized the attitude of settlers, i.e. illegals, that refused to obey the laws of Mexico and who already operated under the pioneer mentality

      You mean the settlers that Mexico was inviting into the Texas territory to populate it, that gave up their (insert country of origin here) citizenship status to become Mexican Citizens? You do realize that the Texas secession from Mexico was by Mexican Citizens and not Americans, right? As for the “pioneer mentality”, that wouldn’t have anything to do with the changing of the agreements from the Mexican President, or the fact of this: Many Texians were also unhappy with the location of their state capital, which moved periodically between Saltillo and Monclova, both of which were in southern Coahuila, some 500 miles (800 km) away; they wanted Texas to be a separate state from Coahuila (but not independent from Mexico) and to have its own capital. So basically the Government, even back then, didn’t want to take care of its own people.

  16. Liquid Reigns Says:

    which many were describing as “divine destiny” as early as 1839.

    Where and how do you come up with this inept statement? Many? and here I was taught it was only one: John O’Sullivan wrote an article in 1839 which, while not using the term “Manifest Destiny”, did predict a “divine destiny” for the United States based upon values such as equality, rights of conscience, and personal enfranchisement– “to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man”. This destiny was not explicitly territorial, but O’Sullivan predicted that the United States would be one of a “Union of many Republics” sharing those values.

    Note the bolded portions of that sentence. Nothing at all to do with Texas itself at the time, nor the “pioneer mentality” you attempt to describe.

  17. The Ethnicization of Immigration Reform: It May Hurt More than … USA Cws Says:

    […] See original here:  The Ethnicization of Immigration Reform: It May Hurt More than … […]

  18. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    Liquid Reigns,

    While you might be so impressed by Wikipedia that you feel the need to quote it, it does not provide the second-order analysis required for this historical problem. Thus, I understand that you find it difficult to grasp the point about “divine destiny.” The usage that you invoke from Wikipedia is etymological; that does not mean that the cultural attitudes and activities it was coined to describe were invented at the point that O’ Sullivan wrote it. That is not how language works. The ineptitude lay with your faulty hermeunetics.

    Most scholars of the war agree that long before the Texas insurrection erupted, Anglo settlers went to Mexico thinking that it would eventually be purchased or annexed by the United States. My point is that the folks who broke from Mexico were not Mexican citizens qua Mexican citizens. The majority were Anglo-Americans with a smattering of Tejanos that aided them. Even The Handbook of Texas (hardly a Chicano rag) says as much:
    “Through the 1820s, most believed that the United States would buy eastern Texas from Mexico. Many thought that that portion of Texas had been part of the Louisiana Purchase and that the United States had “given” it away to Spain in exchange for Florida in the 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty, which established the Sabine River boundary. The Texas pioneers expected annexation would stimulate immigration and provide buyers for their land. A second attraction was that Mexico and the United States had no reciprocal agreements enabling creditors to collect debts or to return fugitives. Therefore, Texas was a safe haven for the many Mississippi valley farmers who defaulted on their loans when agricultural prices declined at the end of the War of 1812 and bankers demanded immediate payment….
    The Anglo-American settlers imported their culture to Texas and resisted Mexicanizing even after 1830, when purchase by the United States was increasingly unlikely. Rich or poor, Anglo immigrants were independent-minded, self-sufficient republicans suspicious of the traditional deferential society of Hispanic culture, even though Mexican reformers were struggling to build a republic. The spirit of Jacksonian democracy pervaded even those not admiring President Andrew Jackson. Moreover, collecting national tariff duties in Texas in 1830 coincided with the growing anti-tariff movement in South Carolina, which resulted in the Nullification Crisis. Texans, like other agrarians, manufactured nothing and disliked import duties on necessities. It was not surprising, then, that American ship captains, supported by Anglo-Texan merchants, refused to pay the new duties and exchanged fire with the fort at the mouth of the Brazos River in December 1831. At this same time, Colonel Bradburn, charged with enforcing Mexican laws regarding immigration and the tariff at Anahuac, arrested civilians and held some without bail for trial before the commandant general at Matamoros. Anglo-Texans believed Bradburn was acting arbitrarily. They did not understand that his actions were required under Mexican law, which lacked anything like a Bill of Rights. Angry men from the Brazos marched to confront Bradburn at Anahuac, while others loaded illegal cannons on a ship to join them. At the mouth of the river, the Anglo-Texans forced the surrender of the fort. The first of the Anahuac Disturbances and the battle of Velasco took place in June 1832″

    You can rationalize all you want, the Mexican-American war was a war of aggression.

    Do you even know what a commodity is? (feel free to check Wikipedia again). It’s a fungible good. Your conflating rights terminology (free movement of peoples) with basic economics terminology (supply and demand). LTV is about pricing of ocmmodities not about labor supply. I’m talking about absolute advantage here–no need to read a blog for that it’s basic economics and in any case I have the Wealth of Nations right here in front of me.

    My family is both Rararumi and Navajo that married into hispano families.. We have always identified as native. I could care less if people think you look white–that’s your issue and, I guess, an issue with other white folk: http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/06/claim-they-have-native-american-blood.html

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      Got to enjoy the History, but still you’re using what was believed to have been in the Louisiana Purchase (East Texas @ The Sabine) as the reason for the entire Territory to secede from Mexico and then blaming it on the Anglo settlers by way of a War of Aggression. Now I refer you to the Adams-Onis Treaty. This agreement, also called the Transcontinental Treaty, was made during the administration of President James Monroe and settled long‐standing disputes between the United States and Spain. Madrid ceded East Florida to the Americans, while Washington surrendered its claims to Texas and agreed to assume payment of American financial claims against the Spanish up to $5 million. The treaty established definitive western boundaries for the Louisiana Purchase, following the Sabine, Red, and Arkansas Rivers to the 42nd parallel, and running along that line to the Pacific. The United States also secured Spanish claims to Oregon.

      So I ask again, what gave Mexico the right to claim the lands that Spain claimed?

      As for the use of wiki, the citations are linked at the end of the sentences/paragraph used to make my point, so to condemn wiki in that regards does very little in way of dismissing it. As for the Handbook of Texas, the portion of which you have described is based on East Texas and the boundary of the Sabine. You still fail to address any fault by Mexico and its Government at the time. SO, I guess promises made by the Mexican Government and the changes made to those agreements by Mexico had no real cause to the secession. Those damned Anglo’s and their ideals.

      Your conflating rights terminology (free movement of peoples) with basic economics terminology (supply and demand). LTV is about pricing of ocmmodities not about labor supply.

      And you are assuming their is some form of Right for the free movement of people across national boundaries. It’s actually, according to Denham-Stueart, “demand and supply”, which is Demand refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price. LTV is actually based on the labor needed to produce the product, which as I stated, it does influence the value of a commodity, the end-product. Now during Smith and Denham’s time, a commodity was something of value produced in large quantities, not the fungible commodity of today.

      I’m talking about absolute advantage here–no need to read a blog for that it’s basic economics and in any case I have the Wealth of Nations right here in front of me.

      Wealth of Nations; Book I, Chapter 5:
      “Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man’s own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities. The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

      I could care less if people think you look white–that’s your issue

      Got to enjoy the animosity.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      I understand that you find it difficult to grasp the point about “divine destiny.” The usage that you invoke from Wikipedia is etymological; that does not mean that the cultural attitudes and activities it was coined to describe were invented at the point that O’ Sullivan wrote it. That is not how language works. The ineptitude lay with your faulty hermeunetics.

      And yet it is you taking the meaning out of its context in order to have it apply to your argument. It can actually go back as far as Adams (“Divine Providence”) and the Adams-Onis Treaty. I suggest you check your faulty hermeneutics and use your parsed phrases within their context and time frames. Continentalization, and the term (“divine destiny” or even “manifest destiny”) as you have used them, was only for the areas as found to be in control of the USA from that purchased from Spain, not for the “take over” of Mexican Territory (Texas and the now US Southwest), your war of aggression.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      Again from the Handbook of Texas yo uchose to cite:
      TEXAS REVOLUTION. The Texas Revolution began with the battle of Gonzales in October 1835 and ended with the battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836; but there were earlier clashes between official forces and groups of colonists, so that it is impossible to set dogmatic limits in speaking of military episodes alone, to say nothing of the development of social and political differences that were a part of the revolution. The seeds of these differences were planted in the national habits and experiences of Mexican rulers and Anglo-American occupants of Texas. Misunderstanding was aggravated in the minds of Mexicans by the conviction that the United States government was not above making use of the colonists to cause trouble in the hope of acquiring Texas by purchase or revolution.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        I have to admit, you and Rey lost me a while ago.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        The intent isn’t to lose you in translation, hopefully others can follow along. What Rey is using, the letter from Channing to Clay, is based on a pamphlet issued by Benjamin Lundy, who by way of his own self interest, has a stake in Texas himself, an experiment to establish black colonies like those in Canada and Haiti:

        (From The New Handbook of Texas) LUNDY, BENJAMIN (1789-1839). Benjamin Lundy, antislavery advocate, was born in Sussex County, New Jersey, of Quaker parentage on January 4, 1789. He became active in the antislavery movement in the 1820s. He organized abolitionist societies, lectured extensively, and contributed to many abolitionist publications. Believing that the slavery problem could be solved by settling free blacks in thinly populated regions, he visited Haiti and Canada and between the years 1830 and 1835 paid three visits to Texas in hopes of obtaining land for such a colony. While in Texas he talked to free blacks, planters, and Mexican officials and visited Nacogdoches, San Antonio, and the Brazos and Rio Grande areas. He concluded that Texas was an ideal place for his colonization experiment; the Mexican government was friendly to his proposal. The Texas Revolution intervened before Lundy could carry out his plans, however, and the Republic of Texas legalized slavery. Lundy charged that the revolution was a slaveholders’ plot to take Texas from Mexico and to add slave territory to the United States. He began publishing the National Enquirer and Constitutional Advocate of Universal Liberty in Philadelphia in August 1836 to set forth his thesis. In the same year he published The War in Texas, a pamphlet arguing against the annexation of Texas to the United States. Lundy won many influential adherents, among them John Quincy Adams, who represented his views in the United States Congress. Adams, Lundy, and their followers were instrumental in delaying the annexation of Texas for nine years. Lundy died on August 22, 1839. After his death his children collected some of his writings, including his accounts of his Texas journeys, and printed them as The Life, Travels and Opinions of Benjamin Lundy (1847).

        The bolded (mine) above is the entire premise of Rey’s argument. Lundy alleges the entire Texas Revolution and eventual annexation, was nothing more than a plot by Southern Slave holding States to gain more Congressional control within the US Congress. It’s all based on the sole opinion of Lundy.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        As for Channing himself, he never set foot in Texas either before or after the Texas Revolution nor Texas annexation. His entire letter to Clay was based on the Lundy allegations of Slavery, for which Channing’s faith intervened (Rey’s claim of an ad-hominem argument by me below); a prominent pacifist and Abolitionist, derived his concept of Texans (“adventurers … outcasts”) from a pamphlet widely circulated in the North, The War in Texas, by William Benjamin Lundy.

        About Channing and his religious beliefs:

        Although obviously a simplification of Channing’s rejection of Calvinist doctrine, the story is indicative of the liberalism of his character. The liberal movement that existed in New England in the early part of the nineteenth century was characterized by its denial of the doctrines of human depravity and election to grace. Despite these differences, liberals remained a part of the church until 1819 when tension between the two groups reached a high point. This moment marked a turning point in the liberal movement and in Channing’s career. At the ordination of Jared Sparks in Baltimore, Channing delivered what would become a definitive oration entitled “Unitarian Christianity.”….

        With the publication of Discourses, Reviews, and Miscellanies in 1830, Channing moved away from the strictly theological focus of his earlier works. Throughout the decade that followed, Channing’s writing moved to social reform, especially to slavery. Although never a radical abolitionist, Channing wrote about the evils of slavery, and the moral corruption it wrought on both slave and slave-holder. His 1838 address, “Self-Culture”, highlights the importance of the development of the individual, the moral, religious, intellectual, and social aspects of character. In his introduction to the text, David Robinson writes, “Channing’s Self-Culture was perhaps the classic definition of the idea in nineteenth-century America.”

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Yeah, I am still lost; but thanks for the in-depth history–using logic and facts to back up a conclusion is sorely missing amongst too many.

  19. bjohns15 Says:

    Good Response, Rey. What a bundle of history.

  20. cookie Says:

    Rey, let me comment on you remark that even though your family is mixed native indian and hispano (Spanish) you identify only with your native indian side. Why is that? Aren’t we the product of both sides of our ancestry? The reason that many Mestizos do that is because they think they can use the stolen land argument and lay claim to parts of the U.S. and even the entire continent as Evelyn claims. If you are part Navajo then your ancestors were native to what we now call the U.S. but the Mestizos of Mexico’s native indian ancestors were not. Their native tribes were the Mayans and Aztecs. Those tribes never occupied the U.S. they were from south of our border.

  21. cookie Says:

    Another point about Mestizos only identifying with their native indian side is, why do they speak Spanish then if they don’t want to be identified with their white European ancestry?

  22. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    cookie said:
    “Mexico’s native indian ancestors were not. Their native tribes were the Mayans and Aztecs”

    ROFLMAO

  23. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    LR:
    “And you are assuming their is some form of Right for the free movement of people across national boundaries.”

    Nope you said that.

    You quoted Smith:

    “Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.”
    Don’t you understand that you are talking about pricing of commodities, not labor supply? Your quote proves my point. LOL

    You said: “I suggest you check your faulty hermeneutics and use your parsed phrases within their context and time frames. Continentalization, and the term (“divine destiny” or even “manifest destiny”) as you have used them, was only for the areas as found to be in control of the USA from that purchased from Spain, not for the “take over” of Mexican Territory (Texas and the now US Southwest), your war of aggression.”

    Faced with the choice of believing you or believing someone who actually lived at the time, I must choose the latter:

    “Did this county know itself, or were it disposed to profit by self-knowledge, it would feel the necessity of laying an immediate curb on its passion for extended territory…. We are a restless people, prone to encroachment, impatient of the ordinary laws of progress… We boast of our rapid growth, forgetting that, throughout nature, noble growths are slow….. It is full time that we should lay on ourselves serious, resolute restraint. Possessed of a domain, vast enough for the growth of ages, it is time for us to stop in the career of acquisition and conquest. Already endangered by our greatness, we cannot advance without imminent peril to our institutions, union, prosperity, virtue, and peace….. It is sometimes said, that nations are swayed by laws, as unfailing as those which govern matter; that they have their destinies; that their character and position carry them forward irresistibly to their goal;….
    that … the Indians have melted before the white man, and the mixed, degraded race of Mexico must melt before the Anglo-Saxon. Away with this vile sophistry! There is no necessity for crime. There is no fate to justify rapacious nations, any more than to justify gamblers and robbers, in plunder. We boast of the progress of society, and this progress consists in the substitution of reason and moral principle for the sway of brute force….We talk of accomplishing our destiny. So did the late conqueror of Europe (Napoleon) ; and destiny consigned him to a lonely rock in the ocean, the prey of ambition which destroyed no peace but his own.”
    (Letter from William Channing to Henry Clay, 1837)

    You said: “So I ask again, what gave Mexico the right to claim the lands that Spain claimed [under Adam-Onis]?” Same thing that gave the US rights to the territories claimed by England–succession of the nation-state as a result of revolution. And in any case Mexico ratified the same treaty in 1831. You’re moving the goal post on this one.

  24. Liquid Reigns Says:

    “Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.”
    Don’t you understand that you are talking about pricing of commodities, not labor supply? Your quote proves my point. LOL

    I haven’t spoken about labor supply, you have; LEGAL immigration is broken; it violates all the laws of supply an demand. My quote proves my point, as it is you who is attempting to say we need their labor, by way of the supply and demand, in assuming our immigration laws are broken.

    Faced with the choice of believing you or believing someone who actually lived at the time, I must choose the latter:

    I would have to think this person to be rather old at this point in time, probably the oldest known person alive, you should be able to point him/her out, or rather you are believing someones interpretation, same as I have to do.

    As for the Channing letter, it is only opinion; that of Channings based on his religious beliefs.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      You can’t really be serious in using Channings letter, can you??

      Channing, a prominent pacifist and Abolitionist, derived his concept of Texans (“adventurers … outcasts”) from a pamphlet widely circulated in the North, The War in Texas, by William Lundy.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      Most scholars of the war agree that long before the Texas insurrection erupted, Anglo settlers went to Mexico thinking that it would eventually be purchased or annexed by the United States.

      I note most scholars, used in your sense of the term, were Northern Abolitionists using Slavery as their “war” cry.

      • LiquidReigns Says:

        Also to note, most who immigrated to Tejas (invited by the Mexican Government to fill lands as a buffer to the USA) at the time believed they were still covered by the Bill of Rights for their first year there, as the Mexican Government allowed for one year to assimilate. None “believed” the US would eventually purchase or annex Tejas, as you said, Mexico and the United States had no reciprocal agreements enabling creditors to collect debts or to return fugitives. Therefore, Texas was a safe haven for the many Mississippi valley farmers who defaulted on their loans when agricultural prices declined at the end of the War of 1812 and bankers demanded immediate payment…., so why would they want to again become part of the US?

        Channings letter (1837) was after Tejas became an Independent Republic (1835). Channing and Clay were attempting to keep, now Texas, from joining the Union based on the fact that Texas would become a Slave State. Texas remained Independent until 1844, when a joint Congressional resolution admitted them into the Union, President Tyler, claiming lands up to the Nueces River, it was Polk (D) who came in and claimed the land up to the Rio Grande after his taking office in 1845. There was an ongoing border dispute between the Republic of Texas and Mexico prior to annexation. Texas claimed the Rio Grande as its border (Separation of Tejas and Coahiula, Coahuila joined with Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas to form the short-lived Republic of the Rio Grande 1840), while Mexico maintained that it was the Nueces River and did not accept Texan independence, even after Santa Ana signed the Valesco Treaty in 1836, which later becomes fait accompli in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848.

      • LiquidReigns Says:

        And from your own link of Handbook of Texas Online

        REPUBLIC OF TEXAS. In the fall of 1835 many Texans, both Anglo-American colonists and Tejanos, concluded that liberalism and republicanism in Mexico, as reflected in its Constitution of 1824, were dead. The dictatorship of President Antonio López de Santa Anna, supported by rich landowners, had seized control of the governments and subverted the constitution. As dissension and discord mounted in Texas, both on the military front and at the seat of the provisional government of the Consultation at San Felipe, the colonists agreed that another popular assembly was needed to chart a course of action….

        Further down the page… the year 1845.
        The British and French emissaries reached Mexico City in mid-April. Luis G. Cuevas, minister of foreign relations, placed their proposals before the Mexican Congress, and in late April Mexico recognized Texas independence.

      • LiquidReigns Says:

        Now the dispute of the territory in the annexation of Texas as claimed by Polk, the Rio Grande, is what caused the Mexican American War, which is based on prior treaties and agreements, boundaries within, of the territory now annexed by the USA, not based on “Manifest Destiny, Divine Province, or Divine Destiny”.

  25. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    “I would have to think this person to be rather old at this point in time, probably the oldest known person alive, you should be able to point him/her out, or rather you are believing someones interpretation, same as I have to do.”

    I was referring to Channing. Who are you taking about? LOL

    Now that you have resorted to ad hominem arguments (i.e. attacking Channing’s Christianity), I don’t see this debate going anywhere, as I am not inclined to stoop so low.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      Ad hominem? I didn’t attack his Christianity, I simply pointed out his opinion is based on his beliefs.

      I was referring to Channing. Who are you taking about? LOL

      I was attempting to lighten up on the animosity, based on humor. Faced with the choice of believing you or believing someone who actually lived at the time, I must choose the latter:

  26. Rey Lopez-Calderon Says:

    “I haven’t spoken about labor supply, you have; LEGAL immigration is broken; it violates all the laws of supply an demand.”

    That’s what I was talking about, duh…If you didn’t want to talk about “that” then you shouldn’t have inserted yourself into the discussion I was having with Cookie.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      That’s what I was talking about

      Hence my Why is it broken? to begin with. How is it broken, since now demand is low, and there is a glutton of supply. H-1B’s took almost the entire year to be used vs only needing one week or less in the past. Unemployment is extensively high right now. Your argument may have worked a few years ago, but, today, it’s a different story. We both may agree some form of CIR needs to be fashioned, but I bet we have much different ideals.

    • Liquid Reigns Says:

      Here was my point in regards to Smith and Denham, neither of them, at the time of their writings, introduced foreign labor into their nationalistic ideals, Denhams mercantilism or Smiths capitalism. There was no immigration of foreigners to fulfill “your” labour side for supply and demand, it is a much later social construct. The only foreigners of their times, were traders and trading goods of equal value, hence the term foreign trade. Hence, the title of Smiths book – The Wealth of Nations. You are mixing economic philosophies to give your argument credibility. Smith was explicit in using his nations own people as the labour and the employer and then sending out their own traders to foreign lands.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Your argument is more based on Denham’s mercantilism system, to the benefit of the producer. Our modern economy falls in line with this thinking, in the sense that foreign labor can now be brought in to control the cost of end product, while maximizing profit for the producer, and minimizing wages of the labour. Quite the opposite of Smiths philosophy.

  27. cookie Says:

    Here is a map of where the Mexican’s ancestral tribes lived.

    http://www.crystalinks.com/aztecs.html

  28. Evelyn Says:

    Cookie I find it very intriguing that you chose to rant and rave about me on a blog where I dont post, in a negative way but you completely give your own racist rantings in Latina Lista a pass. If anyone IS racist and anti-Hispanic immigrant it’s you.

    Using misinformation,and lies on a daily bases like you do to demonize immigrants who are Hispanics, like you do proves my point

    The bug I have up my behind about these far right goons is that they are under the delusion that their racism against Hispanic immigrants is ok because, after all, they are just “telling the truth” and fighting for “rule of law.” Racism is racism, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. You can put lipstick on a pig, but IT IS STILL A PIG! Constantly demeaning one particular group because of their hate, while ignoring all of the positive aspects and contributions of that group is RACISM, straight up! If one were to do the same thing to whites, blacks , any other group, it would be seen as racism, no questions asked. But because this hatred is against Hispanic immigrants , then it is explained away, justified,with ‘ rule of law’ and that is BS! The hard-core far right is just as racist and hostile towards Mexican -Americans and Indigenous culture/civilization as the far right is towards “people of color.” Let’s just drop the pretense that it is anything other than what it is: a thinly veiled excuse to vent hatred and resentment on a group of people due to their skin color. And we’re supposed to like it and excuse it. NO THANKS!

    So since you chose to call me out publicly on this blog cookie, I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine, because everything you just said can be said about you.

    The ugly side of the anti-immigrants which exposes your pure unadulterated hatred of Hispanic immigrants and your hate filled agenda is dispicable.

    You didnt just think everyone would sit around and not respond to your flagrant flaunting of racism and hatred in this country of three hundred million people without exposing your hypocrisy, did you?

  29. bjohns15 Says:

    A civil tone is more productive. Yelling causes more yelling.

  30. Evelyn Says:

    I guess you failed to notice I took her first post to you, filled with misinformation about me, and inserted her name where mine was and Hispanic where white was. Those are actually cookie’s words not mine. I changed very little.

    Long ago I tried to explain to Cookie that what she was saying about immigrants wasent true. I tried reasoning with her. I tried being civil to her and guide her to links that explain how Mexico was flooded with cheap corn from the US, and how that and other facts left Mexicans without a way to make a living in their own country.

    I tried to explain to her that just like we were in the midst of a spiraling crises here in the US. Mexicans were suffering the same. And not just Mexicans, people of color in many countries that surround the US.

    I told her how the immigrants were not to blame for coming here to look for jobs. The people we should blame I explained, were greedy corps. and big companies in collusion with corrupt Government elites who lined their pockets with money stealing the wealth of middle class and poor people.

    I suggested that instead of going after the victims of this corruption we should all join togather and try to bring change that would benefit not only us but also the people in other countries who are forced to leave their families and friends their homes and every thing familiar to them and hike through a deadly desert risking their lives to follow the wealth of their countries.

    I was told how unpatriotic I was for blaming this country because I hated it. I never tried to reason with her again. For the past 2 years I have seen many try and all have failed.
    Some people reject reason, and that is OK.

    You see it isn’t reason that drives cookie, it is hate.

  31. bjohns15 Says:

    Hey Evelyn:

    I did notice something weird about your post. two years you say? Darn.

    Reason is such a rare commodity these days.

  32. bjohns15 Says:

    Also, Evelyn, as to the cause of illegal immigration, I think there are many more. I’ve been mulling one cause over for a bit now: Americans'(both rich and poor) drug use and its effect on Mexico. I think, at least recently, the massive drug trade has further corrupted the Mexican government and hindered much in the ways of progress. But that is for another day. 8

  33. cookie Says:

    Evelyn, the only reason I brought up your name in here is because Bryan chose to single me out from Latina Lista about my so-called rude remarks but never said a word in here about your absolute hateful remarks in Latina Lista. Of course we know the reason for that is because Bryan is an illegal alien sympathizer as you are so he is operating under a double standard by bringing my name up in here but not yours.

    It is a lie that I am anti-Hispanic and a hater. It is YOU who are the racist and hater of anyone of white European ancestry who isn’t going along with your open borders agenda.

    I have NEVER posted any lies about illegal aliens. Whenever I have posted any stats on them they are only from government sources. Your problem is that you can’t keep your posters straight. You attribute other’s remarks and statistics to me in Latina Lista when it wasn’t me who did it. My objection to illegal immigration is stictly because of our immigration laws. So get that straight and stop attributing me with other’s posts in Latina Lista!

    No one hates Hispanic “immigrants”. It is only an objection to those who are here illegally, Hispanic or not. That is another lie you constantly spread!!!! What has this to do with skin color? We have had people in this country since its founding with various skin colors. Pulling the race card again? Since when is it racist to object to illegal immigration anyway?

    No, YOU are the hater! You hate the fact that this country is predominanty of white anglo European ancestry. You were completely brainwashed by your native indian grandmother to live in the past and to eternally hate them. Pretty sick and amazing considering that you are of Irish ancestry yourself. You have nothing to base your accusations that Americans who want our immigration laws respected as being haters and racists because it isn’t true!! Your opinion does not make it true either!!! Pretty amazing and sick also that one who is so filled with hatred for the white race herself can be such a hypocrite in that respect. Now get lost, I have no use for your BS, hatred and lies!

  34. cookie Says:

    Bryan, is that the best you can do is to complain about my exclamation points? Why not comment on what I said instead? By the way, I have only been posting in Latina Lista for around a year, not two years. Evelyn constantly mixes up posters in Latina Lista. If you are anti-illegal immigration she lumps all of our remarks together as if we have all said the same thing when we haven’t. I don’t post stats on illegal immigration unless they are from a government source but that doesn’t matter to her. I get to be attributed with someone else’s stats or remarks anyway. My objections are mostly based on the rule of law anyway. Anyone who wants our immigration laws enforced is a racist to her.

    She also posts in the Hispanic Business Forum. A really vile raza forum. Only about a half dozen or so members in there about 3 who are anti-illegal. The rest like Evelyn hate white people who aren’t up with their Chicano Nationalist agenda and they don’t mind calling white people all kinds of nasty names and get away with it because most of their moderators are totally biased. Evelyn can really spew her hatred in there and she does. Oh, and she hates Republicans to and calls them racists. She claims that those who oppose Obama politics do so because he is black. She forgets that he is half white though.

    In short, she really needs to seek psychiatric help for the brain washing she received to live in the past eternally and hating on white people of European ancestry. She’s a real piece of work.

  35. bjohns15 Says:

    I just want a civil tone, that’s all, cookie. The ! usage is not incorrect; it’s just makes the words seem like “yelling” and it isn’t necessary to do that in order to get points across.

  36. Liquid Reigns Says:

    Here’s a new claim from Change.org and Prerna fully questioning why Rep. Baca isn’t basing his support due to ethnic ideals.

    http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/rep_joe_baca_finally_cosponsors_the_dream_act

    Why would a Hispanic politician in a district with healthy Latino demographics not co-sponsor a legislation to help legalize young undocumented immigrants and give them access to higher education at the drop of a hat?

    • bjohns15 Says:

      Yeah, Prerna is…not my biggest fan. She titled a post once upon a time when I wrongly accused her of censorship. Basically called me a Moron, privileged, white, etc. because of comments that I wrote on other blogs. In my opinion, Prerna, as well as Vivirlatino, do more harm to imm. reform than good, at least when it comes to the heavy focus on race.

      In fact, I’ve spoken with others–what cookie what call “ethnocentric” blog authors–who are of the same opinion as I when it comes to the blogs i mentioned above.

      It’s all so fractured, that’s why I think the takeover theory is tenuous at best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: