Immigration

Mexicans, Latinos and Immigration

Hispanics or the set of people we call Latinos today were the inhabitants of Florida, Louisiana, the five south western states, plus Texas at a time when we had the thirteen colonies. The areas they inhabited in the west and the south west used to be part of Mexico, whilst Florida and Louisiana possibly belonged to Spain.

But wars, treaties, buyouts, expansions by the settlers and by state and by federal government sanctioned militias in the south and from the thirteen colonies, into the American west and other territories (see Ernest Adams answer) led to these areas becoming part of the union.

We call them “hispanics” after Hispaniola or “Latinos” today because they all speak the language of Spain as an officially adopted language.

But there are differences. For example, majority of those hispanics in Florida and Louisiana were mostly brought over from Spain. Whereas the ones from America’s west and south western states are natives to that area. Westward expansion of Anglo American settlers brought them conflicts, wars, seizure of land, seizure of hunting grounds for mining and for agriculture.

Also, one sided trade and sale of territory agreements between the Church, the colonists and the European Empires were drawn without their consent - as citizens or as Empire subjects worthy of protection. This led to forcible marches from ancestral homes all over the west and to a huge displacement of many pre-Columbian natives in the south western territories.

Many went back to Mexico, lost sovereignty and ancestral rights while others stayed and joined the union as Americans.

And unlike the Native Americans or the Indian tribes who suffered a similar displacement, those “hispanics of pre-Columbia descent” who stayed in the Union “and were deemed to speak Spanish” were never granted any protection when the “Natives Act” was passed by the Congress. They were deemed “Latinos of hispanic descent” which is a another way of saying they were of European descent, and are a subject to the King of Spain or a set of Papal bulls that the Founding Fathers never recognized.

This official tag “Latino” or “hispanics” rules them out of being able to claim sovereignty or any kind of protection under the Natives Act, and this is one key factor that made it possible for “returning Mexicans of pre-Columbia descent” to be rounded up and deported today.

But as “individuals and a group displaced by the state through war, and colonial settlers through expansion and forced eviction”, the Constitution and the U.S. Federal legal codes clearly states otherwise….

  • And the Cubans have shown us that there are provisions available for any group to argue outside the official tag “Latino” or “Hispanic”.

That is why I campaigned to:

  • remove Mexicans from the Latino or Hispanic tag, and have them recognized as pre-Columbian.
  • extend the the benefit granted by the Native American rights to all Mexican immigrants of pre-Columbian descent in the United States.
  • grant them a blanket sovereignty in all the mentioned states.

This is why I created a political party for them. See my Charter and Bylaws for this FEC registered political entity at La Alianza De Peregrinos de los Estados Unidos (PAL) or The PILGRIMS Alliance Party of the United States (PAL)

It is also possible to read more about my proposal for this group at ImmigrationVeterans' talkback and at ReBuildUSAtoday

Or let's review what I've just said so far and look at it this way:

As a presidential candidate, my view on immigration is quite simple, practically pragmatic, progressive and comprehensive in the utilitarian and millennia sense.

image

The simple fact that Mexicans - being of pre-Columbian descent, are an indigenous group that was once local to the south and the western part of the United States, qualifies them to be looked at as an independent group outside the Latino label.   I will therefore push for a legislation to grant them indigenous rights.

image

 

If you disagree, then look at it this way.  If we look at Alamo, as an example of an event that affected indigenous population that was local to that particular battle theater, then consider the ferocity of the push - deeper into Mexican territory, we'll see, that rather than being allowed the option of citizenship - as was optioned to some American Indians, the local indigenous population (ancestors of these people) were forcibly displaced by the nature of war fought by the expanding Union.

So, to most Mexicans, a trip to what we called the United States today, is like a return to their ancestral land.  Therefore, it is most rational to look at these hardworking people the way we look at Cuban exiles - a group that have thrived well outside the Latino and Hispanic label.

But if we keep going Latino! Latinos! on immigration, and look at "toda Latinos" from the eyes of their political leaders - most of whom are of Spanish Galician/Catalan descent, we'll be applying Greco-Roman standard to a set of people that have nothing in common to these two European groups.  And we'll be denying a majority of indigenous people who were once local to the United States their natural right of return to a land that was once their ancestors.

Double jeopardy by way of war and colonization is at play here.  Why make it worse by an old immigration system that seems out of sync with the millennia?  Granting "indigenous rights" to Mexicans already in the United States and placing them outside the Latino label is something I will do as president elect.  It is the most ethical thing to do before building a wall.  And even if I have to build a border wall, it will be in the form of new urban communities and productive border settlements - as proposed and penned out in my previous post last year.

image

The Pharaoh's did it to the Jewish immigrants in Egypt.  King Solomon did it for immigrants residing in his domain in the Bible.  The King of England used the same approach to address issues of legal status faced by the British Jewry - when he designated them "the King's visitors" when the British parliament, the land Barons, the Lords and manor Lords ganged up to deny them a legal status, talk less of British citizenship.

Worse, if we look at them from Donald Trump's public options, then we are not too far from a modern day "trail of tears".  Sad things is, Trump's ancestors were not here to witness "the trail of tears" the forced displacement of "Alamo" and neither was any of his ancestors here to experience the battle for independence at Fort McHenry.  He doesn't know any better.