English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Note from A Study Of Our Decline by Philip Atkinson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it Assimilation or Invasion?
by: Phyllis Schlafly
November 28, 2001
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?

Home Main Contents

2007-01-14 17:22:46 · 8 answers · asked by fivefootnuttinhuny 3 in Politics & Government Embassies & Consulates

8 answers

I guess I might be a "blood" American but I'm also Muslim. Anyway, I can see your concern and distress. There is a large outpoor of hispanic people coming to America and this article is saying that they want California and Arizona back. I don't have anything against Mexicans in general. We all got jobs and families to worry about. I do think that they should learn English, get jobs, not be in gangs, and dress less slutty. But that's not ALL of them. They have a lot of diversity and culture offer too, right? Peace.

2007-01-15 11:05:18 · answer #1 · answered by justmyinput 5 · 1 0

Well, your post looks like it could be kinda inflammatory, but I'm all about open borders. In fact, we should be sending more upper class Americans and entrepreneurs down there to bump their economy and spread our own civilization. Open borders can work both ways, and sitting back while our society is changed by Mexican colonialism (That was so much fun to say, I can hardly even believe it) is a losing proposition.

Let's face it, poor people make more babies, and those babies are poor, so it keeps going. Then you wind up with these so called "minorities" ending up as majorities and dragging society downward. Notice, this is about poor people of 'every' race; there're plenty of lard *** white Americans who contribute nothing more to this country than watching tv and shopping at wal-mart (which is a bad thing to do if you actually want your community to survive, let alone thrive). Notice also, I don't dislike poor people, some of them are the hardest workers of all, but there is a link between poverty and birth rates.

In other words, it is in our best interests to see to it that Mexico become a wealthy, well managed country, so that its citizens will not feel compelled to migrate north and replicate their problems.

2007-01-14 17:34:10 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob P 2 · 1 0

They've already taken over.

I was actually going to post a semi-intelligent post, but I thought it'd be much more entertaining to answer your question with a post-apocalyptic tone, sweetened with the irreverent tinge of xenophobia and racism......

Blood Americans, much like Blood Elves, seem to be addicted manipulating the Holy Light of creation... or was it addicted to hate? I can't really remember......

Anyways, I wouldn't worry so much about the Mexicans invading... they've been invading for over a century and we've done nothing but cry about it..... In other countries, a simple mass genocide ends it. Obviously us Blood Americans are too chickenshit to do anything other than whine.

Besides, the Blacks have already enculturated our youth, and made the elders look like crotchety old fools. The race war is over, and the endtimes have begun.....

I suggest learning some dialect of Chinese, so that they don't eat you when they start outsourcing people back to the US and ultimately destroy our country 30 years from now.

There, I do believe I've thoroughly pissed off everyone reading this. Go, me.

2007-01-14 17:56:54 · answer #3 · answered by RemyK 3 · 2 1

People have been dying on a daily basis in the Middle East far longer than America was even formed, let alone freed the Iraqi people from the Sadam regime. You try to equate this to Pontius Pilate and Jesus. If you know anything about the history of Christianity, Jesus was destined to die for our sins, so Pilate in fact did nothing but unknowing follow the will of God. So to answer your question, NO I don't see blood on my hands and NO it is not because I turn a blind eye... there is no blood to see.

2016-03-14 06:00:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Not before but it is just the same mixture of facts and paranoid propaganda that you see in other places.

If you actually looked at the history of the US and Mexico you would see that most of the southwest was taken by force from Mexico, the socio-political reality is that it will stay that way. The same way that the US backed the coup that overthrew the recognized monarchy of Hawaii, the foreign embassadors advised the queen to be practical and not resist.

Just as the majority of Hawaiians accept that they are part of the US and that won't be changing. The majority of Mexicans realize that the borders are drawn and will not be changing. There are always the dreamers who wish for restitution that will never be but most people are pragmatic.

2007-01-14 17:32:29 · answer #5 · answered by dullorb 3 · 2 0

Phooey!!! Way too long.

To my understanding, all 19 terrorists entered the US fully legally.
No sneaking through Canada or Mexico.

Mexico is a poor country. That is why people cross the border. Them asking more money for oil is expected. If the oil was in Texas, would you give it to china at a discount? Do Texans give it cheaply to other Americans? Some how I doubt it.

2007-01-14 17:28:47 · answer #6 · answered by rostov 5 · 2 1

What's a "blood American", you mean the Native Americans? The ones we white folks stole the land from, murdered, raped and gave diseases to??? We are the invaders baby. Get the truth, get the facts, you have neither except hot air.

2007-01-14 17:27:08 · answer #7 · answered by MadforMAC 7 · 3 1

LOL!! Blood Americans?

So.. your Native American then?

2007-01-14 17:28:47 · answer #8 · answered by There you are∫ 6 · 2 1

Got a question to go along with the spam, sport?

Did you know that Mexico is in America, also?

2007-01-14 17:30:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers