We've already "annexed" most of Mexico - It was called "Manifest Destiny"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

The Mexican-American War grew out of unresolved conflicts between Mexico and the Republic of Texas and from the desire for U.S. imperialism, an idea known as "Manifest Destiny". After the 1836 Texas Revolution, Mexico refused to recognize the existence of the Republic of Texas, and declared its intention of recapturing the breakaway province. Officials in the Republic of Texas expressed interest in being annexed to the United States, though Mexican officials warned that annexation would mean war. For years, the United States declined to annex Texas, but in 1845, President John Tyler—on his last day in office—sent an offer of annexation to Texas. Texas accepted, and soon became the 28th state of the United States.

The Mexican government complained that the United States, by annexing its rebel province, was intervening in Mexico's internal affairs and had unjustly seized sovereign Mexican territory. British envoys had repeatedly attempted to dissuade Mexico from declaring war, but British efforts to mediate were fruitless as additional political disputes (particularly the Oregon boundary dispute) arose between the United Kingdom and the United States.

After the annexation of Texas, newly elected President James K. Polk set out to acquire the Mexican province of California. American expansionists wanted California in order to have a port on the Pacific Ocean, which would allow the United States to participate in the lucrative trade with Asia. Furthermore, Mexico's hold on its distant province was weak, and American expansionists feared that California would eventually be acquired by Great Britain, which, according to the thinking of the Monroe Doctrine, was a threat to U.S. security. In 1845, Polk sent diplomat John Slidell to Mexico to purchase California and New Mexico for up to $30 million.

In January 1846, Polk increased pressure on Mexico to sell by sending troops, under General Zachary Taylor, into the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande—territory that was claimed by both Texas and Mexico. Taylor ignored Mexican demands that he withdraw, and marched south to the Rio Grande, where he began to build Fort Brown.

Slidell's arrival in Mexico caused political turmoil after word leaked out that he was there to purchase additional territory and not to offer compensation for the loss of Texas. The Mexicans refused to receive Slidell, citing a problem with his credentials. Slidell returned to Washington, D.C. in May 1846. Polk regarded this treatment of his diplomat as an insult and an "ample cause of war", and prepared to ask Congress for a declaration of war.

We should give it back?

mexico and mexicans.

so who are we railing at?

our own relatives -- that's who.

...the Irish, the ENglish, the Spanish, etc. etc. WHat does it mean?

the irish or the english etc like we do with mexico.

we share a ''border'' with mexico and much, much stronger blood ties{and those blood ties are renewed all the time} with mexico than any other country as result of the afore mentioned history. millions of people in this country have families that stretch across this border.

and every year that goes by -- that bond grows stronger -- and it's mostly fine with me.

my point of view is that there should be pretty much open crossing between mexico and the u.s simply because of those family ties.

it's far more like one country than two to me.

I don't see how "blood ties" really has much to do with it, and don't agree with your statement that Mexico is somehow closer to us than other nations or cultures. Maybe along the border that is the case, but not for most of the country.

yes, we disagree.

and happy to do so.

...anyone should be able to move to the US? I'm trying to understand. I can see you're emotionally invested in the issue, now explain the rationality behind your thought.

my thoughts range to the mexican border.

here are some different views on the issue.

some of these form my thinking besides the family relationship we share with mexico.

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Immigration.html
The Impact of Immigrants on Native Earnings



There are two opposing views about how immigrants affect the labor market opportunities of American natives. One view is that they have a harmful effect because immigrants and natives tend to have similar skills and compete for the same jobs, thus driving down the native wage. The other view is that the services of immigrants and natives are not interchangeable, but rather complement each other. For instance, some immigrant groups may be unskilled but particularly adept at harvesting crops. Immigration then increases native productivity and wages because natives can specialize in tasks for which they are better suited.

The first view is more likely correct. Economists who have rejected this view on the basis of evidence have looked at somewhat superficial data. These economists speculated that if the services of natives and immigrants are interchangeable, natives should earn less in cities where immigrants are in abundant supply, such as Los Angeles or New York, than in cities with few immigrants, such as Nashville or Pittsburgh. Although natives do earn somewhat less in cities that have large immigrant populations, the correlation between the native wage and the presence of immigrants is weak. If one city has 10 percent more immigrants than another, the native wage in the city with the most immigrants is only 0.2 percent lower.

i'm not a libertarian but this piece does some justice to dispelling the myth of ''illegal immigrants and wages.

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

In 1989, the U.S. Department of Labor reviewed nearly 100 studies on the relationship between immigration and unemployment and concluded that "neither U.S. workers nor most minority workers appear adversely affected by immigration."

very detailed evidence about ''illegal'' immigration, over all wages continue to rise -- with of course complications in specific sectors.

http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP39C/Immigration.htm

belonged to other flags than the english.

i guess that means nothing, huh?

You made it sound as if Mexico was the only country slighted.

You must include...Holland, France, Russia and Spain. Also the indigenous tribes or the Norwegians. And as of late the Chinese.

Mexico statehood. That would solve the "illegal immigration" problem and force corporations to abide by labor laws.

I wish you would start a thread on it.

Don

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We go down at least once a year to visit my wifes relatives in Monterrey. What you said is an understatement.

We should keep their land and send the ancestors of the people who once lived there to some desert to live?

Don

Who are these people exactly? The ancestors of people who fled the war? How can we tell who the "real" ones are vs. the ones who just want in?

I can't buy into this line of thinking.

They are Mexicans.

I thought you knew that. I guess I needed to be clearer?

Don

:rofl:

They are the ones with REALLY brown skin.:eyes:

The REALLY brown skin. But what if they went to a tanning bed just to get into America?

If you're saying we should let the people who lived there before have free access, then we need to determine EXACTLY who those people were, and we can't. WHich families? Which names? It's a moot point. I believe in fair, legal immigration, and fair wages for migratory workers. But I can't ascribe to some kind of "pay back" program or policy because of things that happened over 100 years ago.

My house is built on what was once, not long ago, Mexico.

..and give your home to a Mexican family?

American Native family?

You are the one who introduced that argument. It doesn't bother me a bit where I live.

is sorta creepy given that we STOLE it.

...and I understand your feeling. War and taking land has been going on as long as history. I agree with what Jerry Springer says, in that to solve problems today, we need to accept borders as they are and see what can be done toward a peaceful existence. Migrant workers from Mexico should receive a decent wage. Our problem isn't the Mexicans, or even so much the illegal immigrants. It's the corporations who keep the wages steep. I don't think we can have open, unregulated immigration, but for once I hope the "little guy" doesn't get totally screwed. If people are working here, paying taxes, and staying out of trouble, more power to them. They should be allowed to work.

:shrug:

Throw in Washington, D.C. and change the name to something more culturally appropriate.

:rofl:

to illegal immigration from the U.S. Until repressive measures were undertaken by the Mexican central government, Anglo colonists in Texas generally remained loyal to Mexico. Now Mexican-Americans are happy to be citizens of the United States. Let's not spoil that. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/LL/ngl1.html

Why not just move here, to there. Annex the rest of it. Looking at the poverty, wondering at the disparity, it seems to me, the ruling families here and in Mexico have been stepping on the poor for what, 4 centuries? Why not just extend the border south, and then step on the necks of the ruling families. That should ease the immigration problems.

Why do so many Mexicans want to come here? It's the poverty I think. Mexico, as a land, is very wealthy. Look at it's mineral wealth. Problem is, the 'trickle down' economics in operation there for centuries has not benefited the people. Thus they come here to find prosperity. I'd do the same thing, so would we all.

It's the ruling families that are causing all these problems. With their greed and lust for power, the same old story.

or the plants. The 'real' wealth of a land is its people. The workers.

You have to look very hard to find better workers than the Mexicans. They are industrious and frugal. Any country would be proud to claim them as their own.

This immigration 'issue', will be the next wedge issue the Republicans will try to force on us, to split us up.

I say welcome them in. If the Mexican nation continues to screw the poor over, well it's their loss, not ours. Besides, I like how they prepare food. Their music is folk, just like ours, just different instruments. Ever square dance to their music? It's fun.

Lets take the fences down and welcome them in. Have the schools teach both Spanish and English and absorb them into our culture. Of course, their culture will change ours also. But over time, it will be one culture.

Once they have the ability to command wages on par with US citizens, "we" will no longer care.

just before payday. That makes them even cheaper. Guess some Bible thumpers need to remind us of this scripture: "The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:34 (NIV)

One part of it guaranteed civil rights & property rights to Mexicans already living in the lands that Santa Ana gave away. The area was sparsely settled, but NOT empty. Parts of it are still sparsely settled.

Was the Treaty honored? Make a guess!

(Thanks for the information. Historical background is always useful.)

and all that was explained. There was a fire, at the courthouse, and all the records of land ownership were destroyed in the fire.

I think it was a Clint Eastwood movie. "Joe" something or other.

Texas Independence Day


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Unanimous Declaration of Independence made by the Delegates of the People of Texas in General Convention at the town of Washington on the 2nd day of March 1836.




When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.


When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.


When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.


When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.


Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.


The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited and induced the Anglo-American population of Texas to colonize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution, that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America.


In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood.


It has sacrificed our welfare to the state of Coahuila, by which our interests have been continually depressed through a jealous and partial course of legislation, carried on at a far distant seat of government, by a hostile majority, in an unknown tongue, and this too, notwithstanding we have petitioned in the humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government, and have, in accordance with the provisions of the national constitution, presented to the general Congress a republican constitution, which was, without just cause, contemptuously rejected.


It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens, for no other cause but a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government.


It has failed and refused to secure, on a firm basis, the right of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty, and only safe guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.

It has failed to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost boundless resources, (the public domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty, or the capacity for self government.


It has suffered the military commandants, stationed among us, to exercise arbitrary acts of oppression and tyrrany, thus trampling upon the most sacred rights of the citizens, and rendering the military superior to the civil power.

It has dissolved, by force of arms, the state Congress of Coahuila and Texas, and obliged our representatives to fly for their lives from the seat of government, thus depriving us of the fundamental political right of representation.


It has demanded the surrender of a number of our citizens, and ordered military detachments to seize and carry them into the Interior for trial, in contempt of the civil authorities, and in defiance of the laws and the constitution.


It has made piratical attacks upon our commerce, by commissioning foreign desperadoes, and authorizing them to seize our vessels, and convey the property of our citizens to far distant ports for confiscation.


It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion, calculated to promote the temporal interest of its human functionaries, rather than the glory of the true and living God.

It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.


It has invaded our country both by sea and by land, with intent to lay waste our territory, and drive us from our homes; and has now a large mercenary army advancing, to carry on against us a war of extermination.


It has, through its emissaries, incited the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our defenseless frontiers.


It hath been, during the whole time of our connection with it, the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions, and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrranical government.


These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, untill they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defence of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assistance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therfor of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self government.


The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.


We, therefore, the delegates with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare, that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently commit the issue to the decision of the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations.




Richard Ellis, President of the Convention and Delegate from Red River.

Charles B. Stewart

Tho. Barnett

John S. D. Byrom

Francis Ruis

J. Antonio Navarro

Jesse B. Badgett

Wm D. Lacy

William Menifee

Jn. Fisher

Matthew Caldwell

William Motley

Lorenzo de Zavala

Stephen H. Everett

George W. Smyth

Elijah Clapp

Claiborne West

Wm. B. Scates

M. B. Menard

A. B. Hardin

J. W. Burton

Thos. J. Gazley

R. M. Coleman

Sterling C. Robertson

James Collinsworth

Edwin Waller

Asa Brigham

Geo. C. Childress

Bailey Hardeman

Rob. Potter

Thomas Jefferson Rusk

Chas. S. Taylor

John S. Roberts

Robert Hamilton

Collin McKinney

Albert H. Latimer

James Power

Sam Houston

David Thomas

Edwd. Conrad

Martin Palmer

Edwin O. Legrand

Stephen W. Blount

Jms. Gaines

Wm. Clark, Jr.

Sydney O. Pennington

Wm. Carrol Crawford

Jno. Turner

Benj. Briggs Goodrich

G. W. Barnett

James G. Swisher

Jesse Grimes

S. Rhoads Fisher

John W. Moore

John W. Bower

Saml. A. Maverick (from Bejar)

Sam P. Carson

A. Briscoe

J. B. Woods

H. S. Kimble, Secretary

What a dumb post. We annexed Hawaii too. History is history.

Would you?

Don

I would really love to live there and we kicked all of "them" out, we'd have more for us!!!!!;)

look at some point you must let bygones by bygones or have war forever

if one wishes to aid and abet foreigners, no matter how aggrieved they feel, no matter how wronged they may have been 100 years ago, into invading one's country with the eventual goal -- which some of them have openly stated -- of "recovering" their territory, then one is both promoting war and a traitor to the land of one's birth

i'm not real interested in what happened in 1846, you know why? it is the people who are still fighting over the territories lost in 1846 or 1446 or 446 BC who cause all the wars of the world

mexico needs to get over it, everyone's land was taken from somebody else at some point in time, you do nobody any favors by encouraging mexico to look backwards bitterly at what was lost instead of forward to what can be built with the rich resources, including petroleum resources, on the territory it actually possesses

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=791701&mesg_id=791877

If you think this is an exception, try spending some time there. (except for Austin)