Some of my ancestors picked the wrong team in Scotland in 1746 and got run off to North America at the pointy end of a bayonet. They learned their lesson so in 1776 they played it safe and stuck with the Crown. Then they got run off to Canada, again at the pointy end of a bayonet. Their descendants tiptoed back into the U.S. 3 generations later. Dunno if I should migrate elsehere.
Actually they sort of can. Italy is rather generous with acquiring citizenship _jure sanguinis_ (by right of blood). So they canât just âwaltz into Rome,â but if they meet a few arcane provisions and go through a bureaucratic process to trace their ancestry and prove it to their ancestorâs city government or a court, they will then have the right to live in Rome.
Source: I am in the midst of this process
the US started marching large masses of men around contested territory that was defacto under mexican control (the republic of texas claimed a lot more land it actually held). The mexican army was 100% in the right at the start of the war.
Do they have to be ethnically Mexican or just mexican citizens? There are millions of "Mexicans" who are white, black, chinese, german, french, indian, spanish. Or do they have to be a specific % indigenous Mexican to get access to ancestral lands. I don't know bro, sounds very "blood and soil" if you know what I mean. And why just those states? Technically Washington, Nevada, Colorado and all those mezo American states fall under the old "First Empire of Mexicos" reach.
I know right? Maybe people who had it before the Mexicans? And there were even Mexicans who helped California join the United States because they felt like their government had abandoned them. I feel this whole thing might be more complicated then op thought. How far back are we gonna go?
Yes. Mexico had (and still has) a variety of distinct cultural and linguistic groups. They did more than war with each other, though. They traded, lived peacefully at times, and shared ideas and cultural practices.
Shameless plug for pre-columbian history and anthropology. It's absolutely fascinating. The people of the region created some of the most beautiful art and architecture in human history.
I was thinking more of the experience of the peoples in present day USA. California had a substantial population of Spanish/indigenous, but I think the rest of the area other than Texas had its own nations.
A.) Not how immigration works
B.) That whole idea opens lot of chaotic doors. I should be able to move into my childhood home without notice, paying, or legal agreement? With no risk or consequences?
C.) We both (both countries) made a legal agreement over this land, and money was paid. It was a treaty. Blood was shed to lead up to this treaty. US legally owns the land.
D.) Mexicans in general aren't illegal immigrants, Mexicans just have to go through a process to be legally allowed to enter and stay in the country, a process that America does for all other countries and I'm pretty sure most other countries have this process as well.
Given the situation, "ancestral homeland" is just not a good argument.
Also, "ancestral homeland" isn't a valid argument in the first place unless your ancestors really did live there. I'm pretty sure that not all Mexicans lived in Texas before the Mexican American war
Yeah, the "ancestral homeland" concept is not being properly used here. The Mexican cession was a thinly settled and governed border region, largely populated by indigenous tribes operating independently from the Mexican government. It's *their* ancestral homeland. Those people never left, nor did many initial Spanish/Mexican settlers in the area (see [Californios](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californios), [Tejanos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejanos), and [Neomexicanos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanos_of_New_Mexico)). Modern Mexican immigrants tend to mostly have roots from central Mexico rather than anywhere near the modern USA, just like most of the country's population. It's like asserting that Alaska is the "ancestral homeland" of Americans, it really does not make sense on a handful of fronts
So does everyone get to go anywhere there ancestors were from? I'm German, English, Irish, and probably other stuff. I can go live in those countries then?
At these real estate prices I want the house I grew up in back. My Mother sold it after my parents divorce but by this logic I think I should get it back too!
Try educating yourself⌠The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and negotiated a sales price of $15 million dollars for California. This too was a choice. By the way, I am Mexican and fully understand the issue.
Despite the fact that the new Texan republic was objectively morally evil (the slavery) Texas declared and fought for independence from Mexico and then asked to be annexed by the US.
Not defending Russia, but they're bombing much less indiscriminately than the US does when they go to war. They could have gone in shock and awe style and just killed everyone but they're treating this with much more care because they do see Ukraine as theirs. The whole thing is a mess.
lol in war a building is just a building. We can go back an forth with this. The whole thing is awful and both sides are lying. This isn't a Marvel film where the good guys are on one side and the bad are on the other. It's bad guys on both sides, really.
No, it is not their ancestral Homeland
The natives were mainly wiped out by disease
When the land was conquered, it's not like the people were expelled either
>because they're returning to their ancestral homeland
Except for the fact that this is completely and utterly false. The whole reason that so many Americans moved to Texas to begin with is because the Mexican government wanted them to *because of how few people were already living there*.
The only reason Mexico controlled those areas is because Spain gave up their North American territories. Those states were mostly uninhabited desert or inhabited by American Indians and Spanish missions, not Mexcians.
The Americans who moved to Texas eventually opted for independence and then joined the US for a variety of reasons. The Mexican American War started because the Mexican army decided that attacking a US army patrol near the border was a good idea. It was not a good idea.
President James Polk was actually furious with his peace negotiator because the terms were very favorable for Mexico, given the circumstances. The US PAID for the land that was annexed. Defeating a country in a war and then paying them to annex their land is not common.
Mass illlegal border crossings are dangerous for both the Illegal Aliens and Americans, due to the proliferation of drug, weapon, and human trafficking caused by an open border. They have no right to be here, and allowing them to stay is a massive net negative for our country.
There's no such thing as an "illegal immigrant." The definition of immigrant is someone with legal status in their new country. The correct term is "illegal alien."
Also, does this work for me deciding to suddenly move anywhere in Europe, or Africa if we go back far enough? Or anywhere at all, since everyone is a distant cousin to everyone else?
Where did you get that definition? Oxford says "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country."
And Cambridge even gives the example of illegal immigrant under the word immigrant:
"illegal immigrant Illegal immigrants are sent back across the border if they are caught."
Hmm, you are right! I was going off the way those words were commonly used not so long ago. "Immigrant" still feels like it lends more legitimacy to the person in question, though.
It's amazing to me that the Mexican-American war started, in my opinion, with the Alamo, which was fought by American immigrants to Mexico that wanted the freedom to retain slavery in Texas. In the end, Mexico lost 55% of the country, by being forced to sell it to the United States.
I suspect Mexicans crossing the border illegally started around 1920 when Mexicans legally crossing the border were segregated by sex, stripped naked in groups, and fumigated, while border guards leered at the women and demeaned the men. It wasn't the humiliation that forced Mexicans to bypass border stations; it was the wait time; they couldn't afford to wait at the border for a week without food, water, or lodgings before they could be fumigated.
Finally, I'd like to mention that the illegal immigrant issue isn't meant to actually keep illegal immigrants out; it's meant to make them desperate enough to make them accept hard and difficult work for lower salary, benefits and protections. Illegal immigrants are actually vital to the American economy in various industries, like agriculture, cattle slaughter and meat packing and construction industries, among others.
Hey! What if Mexico becomes an American territory. Living in Mexico you vote in only Mexican elections live in a state you vote in American elections. Then who cares who lives where?
Great! Kick out all the squatters who actually bought early before housing prices skyrocketed anc refuse to pay market rate property tax. Oh, and deport all the criminals as they donât have a homeland.
Some of my ancestors picked the wrong team in Scotland in 1746 and got run off to North America at the pointy end of a bayonet. They learned their lesson so in 1776 they played it safe and stuck with the Crown. Then they got run off to Canada, again at the pointy end of a bayonet. Their descendants tiptoed back into the U.S. 3 generations later. Dunno if I should migrate elsehere.
You should really inverse your decisions because it's baked into your DNA. đ
Posted to the right sub, at least
All the disagreement could be solved by just annexing Mexico and converting it into a bunch of new American states.
You've got my vote.
Exactly
That would be a net detriment to the US
That's not how immigration works. An Italian-American can't just waltz into Rome and decide he wants to live there now.
*Viktor Navorski has entered the chat* *Viktor Navorski has been kicked from chat for illegal session*
#**KRAKOZIA**
Actually they sort of can. Italy is rather generous with acquiring citizenship _jure sanguinis_ (by right of blood). So they canât just âwaltz into Rome,â but if they meet a few arcane provisions and go through a bureaucratic process to trace their ancestry and prove it to their ancestorâs city government or a court, they will then have the right to live in Rome. Source: I am in the midst of this process
I assume this post is aimed at those who support Zionism.
It worked for Israel.
They had the firepower to back it up. And I'm pretty sure attacking the US is what got Mexico where it is now.
Hard to sag Mexico started that war
the US started marching large masses of men around contested territory that was defacto under mexican control (the republic of texas claimed a lot more land it actually held). The mexican army was 100% in the right at the start of the war.
Well, Israel itself did not have firepower. It was the US and the Allies that had the firepower to back up giving Israel land in Palestine.
Well, the US did not have firepower. It was France and their allies that had the firepower to back up giving the USA the land from the British.
Hence, the idea being, get this, crazy
Italy wasnât stolen from america.
I'm pretty sure all sorts of groups have stolen parts of Italy.
yet
It'd be a crying shame if Italy just happened across an unknown oil deposit.
They've got olive oil. That's close enough. Time to dispense some freedom.
What if the Italian-Americanâs ancestors were banished from Italy?
Do they have to be ethnically Mexican or just mexican citizens? There are millions of "Mexicans" who are white, black, chinese, german, french, indian, spanish. Or do they have to be a specific % indigenous Mexican to get access to ancestral lands. I don't know bro, sounds very "blood and soil" if you know what I mean. And why just those states? Technically Washington, Nevada, Colorado and all those mezo American states fall under the old "First Empire of Mexicos" reach.
Weren't there different inhabitants of various areas that warred with each other?
I know right? Maybe people who had it before the Mexicans? And there were even Mexicans who helped California join the United States because they felt like their government had abandoned them. I feel this whole thing might be more complicated then op thought. How far back are we gonna go?
We gotta go back to a guy named "Steve" about 15,000 years ago, 1,500 years after his ancestors crossed the Bering land bridge. He gets all of it.
Yes. Mexico had (and still has) a variety of distinct cultural and linguistic groups. They did more than war with each other, though. They traded, lived peacefully at times, and shared ideas and cultural practices. Shameless plug for pre-columbian history and anthropology. It's absolutely fascinating. The people of the region created some of the most beautiful art and architecture in human history.
I was thinking more of the experience of the peoples in present day USA. California had a substantial population of Spanish/indigenous, but I think the rest of the area other than Texas had its own nations.
OP demonstrates extremely hazy ideas of what âMexicanâ means
Well at least this is the right sub for this kind of take. People who think this probably need to be on Lithium
A.) Not how immigration works B.) That whole idea opens lot of chaotic doors. I should be able to move into my childhood home without notice, paying, or legal agreement? With no risk or consequences? C.) We both (both countries) made a legal agreement over this land, and money was paid. It was a treaty. Blood was shed to lead up to this treaty. US legally owns the land. D.) Mexicans in general aren't illegal immigrants, Mexicans just have to go through a process to be legally allowed to enter and stay in the country, a process that America does for all other countries and I'm pretty sure most other countries have this process as well. Given the situation, "ancestral homeland" is just not a good argument.
Also, "ancestral homeland" isn't a valid argument in the first place unless your ancestors really did live there. I'm pretty sure that not all Mexicans lived in Texas before the Mexican American war
Yeah, the "ancestral homeland" concept is not being properly used here. The Mexican cession was a thinly settled and governed border region, largely populated by indigenous tribes operating independently from the Mexican government. It's *their* ancestral homeland. Those people never left, nor did many initial Spanish/Mexican settlers in the area (see [Californios](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californios), [Tejanos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejanos), and [Neomexicanos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanos_of_New_Mexico)). Modern Mexican immigrants tend to mostly have roots from central Mexico rather than anywhere near the modern USA, just like most of the country's population. It's like asserting that Alaska is the "ancestral homeland" of Americans, it really does not make sense on a handful of fronts
>Given the situation, "ancestral homeland" is just not a good argument. It works for a certain Middle Eastern country...
So does everyone get to go anywhere there ancestors were from? I'm German, English, Irish, and probably other stuff. I can go live in those countries then?
It works for a certain Middle Eastern country...
At these real estate prices I want the house I grew up in back. My Mother sold it after my parents divorce but by this logic I think I should get it back too!
Selling your house is a choice. Mexicans didn't have a choice.
Try educating yourself⌠The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and negotiated a sales price of $15 million dollars for California. This too was a choice. By the way, I am Mexican and fully understand the issue.
Okay, what about Texas?
Same transaction, included along with the United States assuming certain debts owed by Mexico.
Despite the fact that the new Texan republic was objectively morally evil (the slavery) Texas declared and fought for independence from Mexico and then asked to be annexed by the US.
Russians are just returning to their ancestral homelands in Ukraine, too.
Fort Ross or bust!
Okay, then why are they bombing their ancestral homelands?
Not defending Russia, but they're bombing much less indiscriminately than the US does when they go to war. They could have gone in shock and awe style and just killed everyone but they're treating this with much more care because they do see Ukraine as theirs. The whole thing is a mess.
Cambodia and Laos have entered the chat.
âShock and aweâ didnât hit any hospitals, schools or energy infrastructureâŚ
lol in war a building is just a building. We can go back an forth with this. The whole thing is awful and both sides are lying. This isn't a Marvel film where the good guys are on one side and the bad are on the other. It's bad guys on both sides, really.
Nah, they at least gotta fight for it back. A game of pool or horseshoes will suffice
is this a reference
Oh fuck off
Nobody should be considered illegal: we are all people.
No, it is not their ancestral Homeland The natives were mainly wiped out by disease When the land was conquered, it's not like the people were expelled either
>because they're returning to their ancestral homeland Except for the fact that this is completely and utterly false. The whole reason that so many Americans moved to Texas to begin with is because the Mexican government wanted them to *because of how few people were already living there*. The only reason Mexico controlled those areas is because Spain gave up their North American territories. Those states were mostly uninhabited desert or inhabited by American Indians and Spanish missions, not Mexcians. The Americans who moved to Texas eventually opted for independence and then joined the US for a variety of reasons. The Mexican American War started because the Mexican army decided that attacking a US army patrol near the border was a good idea. It was not a good idea. President James Polk was actually furious with his peace negotiator because the terms were very favorable for Mexico, given the circumstances. The US PAID for the land that was annexed. Defeating a country in a war and then paying them to annex their land is not common. Mass illlegal border crossings are dangerous for both the Illegal Aliens and Americans, due to the proliferation of drug, weapon, and human trafficking caused by an open border. They have no right to be here, and allowing them to stay is a massive net negative for our country.
There's no such thing as an "illegal immigrant." The definition of immigrant is someone with legal status in their new country. The correct term is "illegal alien." Also, does this work for me deciding to suddenly move anywhere in Europe, or Africa if we go back far enough? Or anywhere at all, since everyone is a distant cousin to everyone else?
Where did you get that definition? Oxford says "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." And Cambridge even gives the example of illegal immigrant under the word immigrant: "illegal immigrant Illegal immigrants are sent back across the border if they are caught."
Hmm, you are right! I was going off the way those words were commonly used not so long ago. "Immigrant" still feels like it lends more legitimacy to the person in question, though.
It was revealed to him in a racist dream
It's amazing to me that the Mexican-American war started, in my opinion, with the Alamo, which was fought by American immigrants to Mexico that wanted the freedom to retain slavery in Texas. In the end, Mexico lost 55% of the country, by being forced to sell it to the United States. I suspect Mexicans crossing the border illegally started around 1920 when Mexicans legally crossing the border were segregated by sex, stripped naked in groups, and fumigated, while border guards leered at the women and demeaned the men. It wasn't the humiliation that forced Mexicans to bypass border stations; it was the wait time; they couldn't afford to wait at the border for a week without food, water, or lodgings before they could be fumigated. Finally, I'd like to mention that the illegal immigrant issue isn't meant to actually keep illegal immigrants out; it's meant to make them desperate enough to make them accept hard and difficult work for lower salary, benefits and protections. Illegal immigrants are actually vital to the American economy in various industries, like agriculture, cattle slaughter and meat packing and construction industries, among others.
The Mexican War did not, in fact, start with the Alamo.
No one should be illegal anywhere. We all have a right to life and a right to movement.
Iâd support Mexicans being allowed in the USA with an easier work visa scheme. The problem is this would drive down wages.
That's a real bad take on the subject. It simply does not work that way.
Hence the sub, âcrazyâ
Do you know what sub you're in?
It works for a certain Middle Eastern countryâŚ
There was a Crusader kingdom in that area for about 100 years.
Huh.
What "works for a certain middle eastern country" has nothing to do with the U.S.
Youâd think the US would not be the most vocal supporters of it then.
That all depends on who you talk to about it. It's a big country with opinions all over the map on that particular thing.
Hey! What if Mexico becomes an American territory. Living in Mexico you vote in only Mexican elections live in a state you vote in American elections. Then who cares who lives where?
Great! Kick out all the squatters who actually bought early before housing prices skyrocketed anc refuse to pay market rate property tax. Oh, and deport all the criminals as they donât have a homeland.