In the current Immigration Debate and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

The Mexican American War was an aggressive war of choice, and one of the worst crimes was the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending America's war of aggression against Hispanic people, and the subsequent breach of its terms and conditions as to language rights and freedom of movement rights of the conquered people (Articles VIII and IX of the Treaty)."

That was the treaty that ended the Mexican American War. And in the current flack about "illegals" and "guest workers" and "English only" and the "Minute men" etc -- Articles VIII and IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gives the Hispanics who were living in the US at the time of ratification --- and their descendants --- US citizenship unless they renounced it affirmatively.

The treat has also been interpreted to say that they and their descendants can cross and re-cross the border as often as they want -- and live on either side of the border - without losing their US citizenship. (Yes - they can be citizens of both the US and Mexico)

Let's get serious - who are they and their descendants? Who knows? For over a hundred years (except during the dust bowl days) - "Mexicans" (who may have been US citizens?) crossed and recrossed a relatively porous border to labor on our farms. With the end of slavery they were cheap labor.

What is the real (DNA and genealogy) status of the 11 million "illegal immigrant" Mexicans in the US (whose ancestors may well have lived here at the time of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - giving them citizenship under the Treaty) as well as another 20 million - 40 million Mexicans in Mexican border states (whose ancestors also may well have lived here at the time of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, also giving them US citizenship).

Are we wrongfully and illegally keeping US citizens out?

Is "English Only" a violation of the rights of putative US citizens.

How many of the "Illegal Immigrants" are really "Illegal Immigrants" and how many have citizenship under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

I don't know the answer -- but the case is going to come before the courts (probably before several courts) sooner rather then later.

Which also give a one year time frame and protected the rights "in the mean time". I was raised in California and taught that Mexicans had a right to speak Spanish and a right to their culture based on this treaty. Having read it as an adult, I'm not so sure that was its intent. In fact, there are time limits in a lot of treaties.

ARTICLE VIII

Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.

Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.

In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.

ARTICLE IX

The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States. and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without; restriction.

but - I went to some seminars where the gist was that once a person got US citizenship in that one year window - they and their descendants had US citizenship in perpetuity- unless they specifically renounced it.

Most of the litigation has had to do with the present day status of the pre-treaty land grants (and the doctrine of "adverse possession" applied against the pre-treaty land grants).

The real issue was the porosity of the border until fairly recently -- and large extended families on both sides of the border (with apparently legitimate claims to US citizenship founded on the Treaty). The problem was - most of those putative citizens did know how to assert their citizenship.

They didn't have to assert their citizenship, if they were here, they were assumed citizens unless they specifically renounced. If their children were born here, definitely citizens. I don't see how it applies to anything all these years later. It certainly doesn't apply to 11 million immigrants now, since most aren't from those border areas and more and more are from central American countries.

I don't know that the protection of culture and language was intended to extend forever either, except as its protected in the Constitution. I don't know that Spanish is a protected language, which has been the argument for Spanish in California schools since I can remember. Not that I think English needs to be an official language. I grew up hearing at least two languages all my life, it would be weird to live in a California that was any other way.

"They didn't have to assert their citizenship, if they were here, they were assumed citizens unless they specifically renounced. If their children were born here, definitely citizens. I don't see how it applies to anything all these years later. It certainly doesn't apply to 11 million immigrants now, since most aren't from those border areas and more and more are from central American countries."

Bettcha with the right lawyers it could be made to apply today - 160 years later

"I don't know that the protection of culture and language was intended to extend forever either, except as its protected in the Constitution. I don't know that Spanish is a protected language, which has been the argument for Spanish in California schools since I can remember. Not that I think English needs to be an official language. I grew up hearing at least two languages all my life, it would be weird to live in a California that was any other way."

Again, bettcha with the right lawyers it could be made to apply today - 160 years later

Maybe not with Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. But let's see who the next President appoints.

I just wanted to post the words of the actual treaty because it really doesn't precisely say what some political groups have said it says.

Most, it not all, of the legal cases have been over the way actual land grants were handled. I'm not familiar with any civil rights cases based on that treaty. I'm also not familiar with every state law that might have been passed to protect Mexican civil and cultural rights.

I'm just posting the treaty so people can look at it themselves.

The argument that all peoples migrate, but somehow white peoples have to return land when they migrated too, is also a bit weird.

US Court of Appeals (9th Circuit in San Francisco) and hear the case argued - by really good civil liberties appellate counsel.

(I would not want to hear it debated in the Senate - they are totally jerks)

High Drama

How will this little item possibly fit into their "strict constructionist" worldviews?

It fits in about as well as the claim to give back Manhatten.
Get real. Noone realy gives a crap what happened 200 years ago

I was raised in California and this debate was going on in the 60's & 70's too. At the time, I thought it was settled law because that's the way it was presented in school. But as you might see from the text posted, I'm really not so sure that the permanent protection of language and culture was ever intended. Religion, sure, because that's in the Constitution. Language isn't.

I don't know if you lose citizenship by virtue of not living here?

If I leave and go to Australia, and my family doesn't come back for 200 years, they've got NO citizenship in this country. In fact, my original ancestors went to Canada first, back in the 1600's. Does that mean I'm actually Canadian? Because if I am, I am SOOOO out of here.

I am "Russian" - Da!

Immigration and nationality and citizenship is more complex then taxation.

to keep aliens out, interestingly. - but if you read the Constitution it only says that "Congress shall provide a uniform rule of Naturalization" along with Bankruptcy, and the only concern was that the states not have different laws. It doesn't say Congress can make any law keeping an alien out or that it can deport anyone.

The founding fathers thought only in terms of populating the continent in their day, and they saw nothing wrong with immigration completely unrestricted, as in reality, it could not really be restricted in those days. Deporting someone then was impractical - they could just come right back.

The first immigration restrictions really did require a Constitutional Amendment, when you think about it. I guess nativist sentiment of the 19th century, (which, when you read it, is amazingly similar to 21st century nativism) overwhelmed any such thought.

This argument is not nearly as crazy as the ones that say the income tax is invalid. Nobody thought this one through, period, during the years of restricting laws.

So if there is an "immigration debate" it is undermined by the fact it shoud have taken place long ago, but no legal minds every thought of it.

American tribes. Why stop with that treaty?

the Native Americans had their rights "extinguished" by Treaty (even if signed at gun point). The "Mexicans" (putative US citizens) had their rights "granted" by treaty.

Mexicans chose between US and Mexican citizenship. Tribes got property rights, but no civil rights. Mexicans got equal civil rights. They both suffered phony land transactions and rip-offs, but in the scheme of things, I think citizenship was the better deal. Natve Americans didn't get citizenship until 1924.

Another thing about treaties though, even the native american treaties aren't exactly what people think they are. This one is with the Klamath, but most of them have similar language.

"..ratification of this treaty, one saw-mill, one flouring-mill, suitable buildings for the use of the blacksmith, carpenter, and wagon and plough maker, the necessary buildings for one manual-labor school, and such hospital buildings as may be necessary, which buildings shall be kept in repair at the expense of the United States for the term of twenty years; and it is further stipulated that the necessary tools and material for the saw-mill, flour-mill, carpenter, blacksmith, and wagon and plough maker's shops, and books and stationery for the manual-labor school, shall be furnished by the United States for the period of twenty years..."