Post: #301

Post: #302

(06-18-2018 09:33 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Did the migrant invasion start in 1492.

Settlers who build a country are not immigrants. What would the US look like without any other tribe coming in?

My guess is that it would look like in the year 1000 with the Sioux and Apaches fighting against each other on foot (they hunted the American horse to extinction) and they might still be ripping out human hearts in Mexico.

And if the US settlers who built the place wanted to leave behind the land - fine - just blow up everything and let the current immigrants build it up to that level. What would Mexico have don with California and Texas? It would look like fucking Mexico and they would still want to go up North of the border.

Liberia is a wonderful example where the black tribe got financial startup, know-how, a US constitution, a land more fertile than the US one - and voila - it's a shithole far worse than the "colonized" neighbors.

The people make a country.

Post: #303

@ Simeon-

In the mid 1840s the US went to war with Mexico which ended in Mexico’s defeat. The US wanted to annex all of Mexico and make it part of the United States. Ultimately this did not happen due to-

1) dislike of evil Catholics. Why annex a nation full of Catholics?
2) non English speaking
3) cultural differences. There was worry about cultural diffusion and that it would erode the American culture.

We settled for California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (which was partially independent).
Looking back they should have annexed all of it. A border with Guatemala is much easier to secure.

Many generals in the US Civil War cut their teeth in the Mexican war. It is interesting that even then the generals considered the war unjust and outright robbery of Mexico. They also knew a US civil war was brewing on the horizon and the annexation of this extra territory would only help the southern cause.

Post: #304

(06-21-2018 09:17 PM)frozen-ace Wrote:  @ Simeon-

In the mid 1840s the US went to war with Mexico which ended in Mexico’s defeat. The US wanted to annex all of Mexico and make it part of the United States. Ultimately this did not happen due to-

1) dislike of evil Catholics. Why annex a nation full of Catholics?
2) non English speaking
3) cultural differences. There was worry about cultural diffusion and that it would erode the American culture.

We settled for California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (which was partially independent).
Looking back they should have annexed all of it. A border with Guatemala is much easier to secure.

Many generals in the US Civil War cut their teeth in the Mexican war. It is interesting that even then the generals considered the war unjust and outright robbery of Mexico. They also knew a US civil war was brewing on the horizon and the annexation of this extra territory would only help the southern cause.

Wasn’t the territory we took in the Mexican American war mostly inhabited by Europeans (Spaniards and British descendants)? Not the Aztec/ mesitizos that inhabit current Mexico.

I can’t imagine Americans at the time would have wanted to annex that territory.

Post: #305

(06-21-2018 09:23 PM)Dusty Wrote:  Wasn’t the territory we took in the Mexican American war mostly inhabited by Europeans (Spaniards and British descendants)? Not the Aztec/ mesitizos that inhabit current Mexico.

I can’t imagine Americans at the time would have wanted to annex that territory.

Mexico invited Anglo settlers into the Texas territory. The reasons were 2 fold:

1. Encourage economic development.
2. Act as an armed buffer to stop Indian raids into Mexico.

The Anglos that heeded the call had two requirements:
1. Be loyal to Mexico.
2. Convert to Catholicism (#2 was pretty much ignored)

The Mexican government was so hopelessly corrupt that the Anglo settlers and a good number of Mexicans decided that being independent was a better option. Hence the war for the independence of Texas.

Post: #306

(06-21-2018 09:49 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  The Mexican government was so hopelessly corrupt

I snipped off a tiny portion of your post (within quote) that sums up what was true in the old days & remains true today, lol. Been to Tijuana once (more than a decade ago). When I returned to the USA / California, I felt thankful & wanted to kiss the ground even though I had a decent enough time in Tijuana. Heheheh.

Post: #307

(06-21-2018 09:17 PM)frozen-ace Wrote:  @ Simeon-

In the mid 1840s the US went to war with Mexico which ended in Mexico’s defeat. The US wanted to annex all of Mexico and make it part of the United States. Ultimately this did not happen due to-

1) dislike of evil Catholics. Why annex a nation full of Catholics?
2) non English speaking
3) cultural differences. There was worry about cultural diffusion and that it would erode the American culture.

We settled for California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (which was partially independent).
Looking back they should have annexed all of it. A border with Guatemala is much easier to secure.

Many generals in the US Civil War cut their teeth in the Mexican war. It is interesting that even then the generals considered the war unjust and outright robbery of Mexico. They also knew a US civil war was brewing on the horizon and the annexation of this extra territory would only help the southern cause.

Canada did and we seem to be doing ok, they're a costly bunch to please though and damn are those fuckers ever horny, they created an entire race (?) of half breeds up here we call the Metis people by banging native women while out in the bush trading fur. Pickings were slim back in the days of New France, well they were until the king sent over a bunch of whores from France to help populate the new territory.

Post: #308

(06-21-2018 09:23 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 09:17 PM)frozen-ace Wrote:  @ Simeon-

In the mid 1840s the US went to war with Mexico which ended in Mexico’s defeat. The US wanted to annex all of Mexico and make it part of the United States. Ultimately this did not happen due to-

1) dislike of evil Catholics. Why annex a nation full of Catholics?
2) non English speaking
3) cultural differences. There was worry about cultural diffusion and that it would erode the American culture.

We settled for California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (which was partially independent).
Looking back they should have annexed all of it. A border with Guatemala is much easier to secure.

Many generals in the US Civil War cut their teeth in the Mexican war. It is interesting that even then the generals considered the war unjust and outright robbery of Mexico. They also knew a US civil war was brewing on the horizon and the annexation of this extra territory would only help the southern cause.

Wasn’t the territory we took in the Mexican American war mostly inhabited by Europeans (Spaniards and British descendants)? Not the Aztec/ mesitizos that inhabit current Mexico.

I can’t imagine Americans at the time would have wanted to annex that territory.

The US back then had a clear racial policy - they had not so much problems with Catholics since the Irish were flooding in anyway. But they did have problems with Mestizos - they regularly deported various other races up until the 1960s, when they wrongly put down White on the forms.

That was more likely the main reason why they did not want to annex Mexico. Sure - for current-day Mexicans this would be better, for the ultimately developing Anglo-dominated Euro-integrating US culture, I doubt that it would be better or even possible to have developed in the same way. People always wrongly assume that countries like Canada, US or Australia were open to all races like it became true since the 1960s. Aside from a few exceptions this was never the case no matter how much history classes, Hollywood media and politics bend over backwards to tell you otherwise. The term racism then had not even been concocted by Lenin yet. The cultures were so utterly non-PC and tribal that it was common sense and as logical as "breathe air to stay alive". There was no need to put it down in the constitution, because it was as clear to most as breathing air.

Post: #309

(06-22-2018 02:39 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 09:23 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 09:17 PM)frozen-ace Wrote:  @ Simeon-

In the mid 1840s the US went to war with Mexico which ended in Mexico’s defeat. The US wanted to annex all of Mexico and make it part of the United States. Ultimately this did not happen due to-

1) dislike of evil Catholics. Why annex a nation full of Catholics?
2) non English speaking
3) cultural differences. There was worry about cultural diffusion and that it would erode the American culture.

We settled for California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (which was partially independent).
Looking back they should have annexed all of it. A border with Guatemala is much easier to secure.

Many generals in the US Civil War cut their teeth in the Mexican war. It is interesting that even then the generals considered the war unjust and outright robbery of Mexico. They also knew a US civil war was brewing on the horizon and the annexation of this extra territory would only help the southern cause.

Wasn’t the territory we took in the Mexican American war mostly inhabited by Europeans (Spaniards and British descendants)? Not the Aztec/ mesitizos that inhabit current Mexico.

I can’t imagine Americans at the time would have wanted to annex that territory.

The US back then had a clear racial policy - they had not so much problems with Catholics since the Irish were flooding in anyway. But they did have problems with Mestizos - they regularly deported various other races up until the 1960s, when they wrongly put down White on the forms.

That was more likely the main reason why they did not want to annex Mexico. Sure - for current-day Mexicans this would be better, for the ultimately developing Anglo-dominated Euro-integrating US culture, I doubt that it would be better or even possible to have developed in the same way. People always wrongly assume that countries like Canada, US or Australia were open to all races like it became true since the 1960s. Aside from a few exceptions this was never the case no matter how much history classes, Hollywood media and politics bend over backwards to tell you otherwise. The term racism then had not even been concocted by Lenin yet. The cultures were so utterly non-PC and tribal that it was common sense and as logical as "breathe air to stay alive". There was no need to put it down in the constitution, because it was as clear to most as breathing air.

This is very much true. I'm most familiar with the history of the Midwestern & Northeastern USA. Definitely in the first half of the 1900's you had various racial blocs sticking with each other whether it was the WASPS (probably large chunks of Germanic descent & some of English descent), the Poles, the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, African-Americans, etc. Sure, a lot of them did business with each other at the shops in town or worked at the same large manufacturing companies, but they kept more of their personal business "in the family" so to speak.

At the same time a lot of these earlier settlers that historically came through Ellis Island did not take the American dream for granted. It was a privilege, not a right. I'm sure they literally kissed the ground upon arrival & were ready to help build a great nation for their families and descendants.

Post: #310

Don't forget about the 900,000 French Canadians who migrated mostly from Quebec to the US north east between 1840 and 1930, I wonder what the US thought of them back then?

Quote:Poverty, overpopulation, debt and infertile soils pushed French Canadians off their land. However, external factors also attracted emigrants to the United States. Indeed, during the second half of the 19th century, Canada and the United States experienced rapid industrial growth. However industrialisation progressed far more rapidly in the USA while Canada’s economy remained more dependent on primary economic activity. Moreover, industrial wages were generally higher in the United States than they were in Canada. Simply put, jobs were easier to obtain in the USA and at better wages.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belang...eaving.htm

Fucking French Frost Back Snow Mexicans!

Post: #311

(06-22-2018 07:10 AM)scotian Wrote:  Don't forget about the 900,000 French Canadians who migrated mostly from Quebec to the US north east between 1840 and 1930, I wonder what the US thought of them back then?

Quote:Poverty, overpopulation, debt and infertile soils pushed French Canadians off their land. However, external factors also attracted emigrants to the United States. Indeed, during the second half of the 19th century, Canada and the United States experienced rapid industrial growth. However industrialisation progressed far more rapidly in the USA while Canada’s economy remained more dependent on primary economic activity. Moreover, industrial wages were generally higher in the United States than they were in Canada. Simply put, jobs were easier to obtain in the USA and at better wages.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belang...eaving.htm

Fucking French Frost Back Snow Mexicans!

Not much. Individual musings aside - Euro cultures are similar enough and the Anglo-protestants gave the guiding culture to hitch their ships on. That is what most of the newcomers did. Tens of millions of Germans, Italians, Eastern Europeans came - they intermarried among each other and adopted American customs with only a few reminders of the old nations. It also helped that the old USA demanded English, demanded assimilation and immersion into the American lifestyle.

Besides - 1 mio. French Canadians is nothing when each decade brought 10 mio. more Euros. And the funny part is - the US did not grow by immigration from 1800 onward. It grew mostly via 6-8+ children born to the protestant Anglos, to the countless settlers. When you have 8 children each for multiple generations, then you can grow really fast. Even 10 mio. Europeans coming in each decade in the late 19th century did not mean that much.

Post: #312

^I agree, we should have assimilated them when we had the chance, now we have to deal with official bilingualism and having them extort us over the threat of separation every couple of decades. We have a two tiered society in Canada and the Frogs hold us Anglos random and get a disproportionate amount of the government cheese. Back in the 1970s they were terrorizing Montreal, kidnapping people, killing, etc. Then they got the power and through laws to protect the French language, they drove out almost a million Anglos from Quebec and put their economy in the shitter, which it has never recovered from. Moral of the story, the US shouldn't allow the Latinos there do the same thing or you'll be paying dearly for centuries to come

October Crisis where Trudeau Sr had to put troops on the streets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

Bill 101 and the alienation of Anglos in Quebec: http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/le...erspective

Revenge Of The Cradle, Quebec's plan to outbreed Anglos in Quebec:

Quote:Quebec has always been sensitive about its demographic prospects; for a long time these were encouraging. The province was legendary for families of 15 or more children. Its population more than tripled between 1900 and 1960; its relative weight within North America also increased. The revanche du berceau ("revenge of the cradle") dreamt of by some romantic nationalists as retaliation for the British conquest of 1759 didn't seem so far-fetched.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/20880...in-quebec/

Sound familiar?

I'm mentioning Quebec because it provides a look at what can happen to the US if it doesn't play its cards right with the Latino population.

Post: #313

Turning the invasion up to 11:

Quote:Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.

“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.

While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner. (RELATED: Mag: Mexican Official Dreams Of Trump Assassination, But Most Urge Prudence)

Obrador in April delivered speech criticizing Trump and promising that Mexico will not become a “piñata” for any foreign government, Global News reports.

The former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador holds progressive populist views. The 64-year-old ran unsuccessfully for president twice before, according to DW.

Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added.

So much for a Mexican ally...

The top runner is someone who says how much Mexico sucks and how he'll help people move to the USA! Illegal immigration is going to be massive once this guy gets in!

Post: #314

Turning the invasion up to 11:

Quote:Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.

“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.

While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner. (RELATED: Mag: Mexican Official Dreams Of Trump Assassination, But Most Urge Prudence)

Obrador in April delivered speech criticizing Trump and promising that Mexico will not become a “piñata” for any foreign government, Global News reports.

The former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador holds progressive populist views. The 64-year-old ran unsuccessfully for president twice before, according to DW.

Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added.

So much for a Mexican ally...

The top runner is someone who says how much Mexico sucks and how he'll help people move to the USA! Illegal immigration is going to be massive once this guy gets in!

Build the wall or we are fucked!

Post: #315

This is another new narrative - the "immigration is a human right" madness.

They really mean that - moving to Saudi Arabia and demanding welfare is a human right! By that measure moving into the Buckingham Palace illegally and demanding to be treated as a Royal family member is my right, also my right to break into the home of a cartel family house and then demand to be treated as the son of the padron. Wonder what they would do to me there?

Not too long ago Hillary promised to curb illegal migration, but now since so many are from that heritage, then it has shifted - also the leftist perception of "everyone is equal", thus "every migrant is equally intelligent and capable and law-abiding" bites you in the ass.

It was of course logical that they would make this argument.

Post: #316

This is honestly not different then what happens now. The Mexican government already encourages illegal immigration to the United States. They just don't do it publicly. Maybe his open honesty on the issue will actually encourage some reform here though.

Most of the latte supping libs up in the Northeast will never really understand what actually going on down Southwest and at the border. In the NE, the Mexican population is relatively small, and peaceful, so when they read about crime, etc. It's just an exaggeration to them. There life experience on the issue just isn't going to match.

Post: #317

Yeah the NE Mexican population is small... Squat, 5 feet tall aborigine look a likes.

Post: #318

Wasn’t the territory we took in the Mexican American war mostly inhabited by Europeans (Spaniards and British descendants)? Not the Aztec/ mesitizos that inhabit current Mexico.


Yes, The Mexican government actually invited Anglos into the Texas and Arizona territories. The purpose was two fold:

1. Encourage economic development (Anglo-American culture was economically a lot more productive that what was inherited from Spain).

2. Act as an armed buffer to raiding native tribes.

Texas wanted independence due to abuses and corruption of the Mexican government. A lot of Mexicans living in the Texas territory joined with the Anglo settlers in rebellion.

When the Mexian American war was over, a majority of the Mexicans living in the areas annexed by the United States stayed put.



In the mid 1840s the US went to war with Mexico which ended in Mexico’s defeat. The US wanted to annex all of Mexico and make it part of the United States. Ultimately this did not happen due to-

Looking back they should have annexed all of it. A border with Guatemala is much easier to secure.

When the USA bailed out Mexico in 1995, there was some talk of instead of just giving Mexico bailout money, the US government should instead purchase the Baja peninsula. Sort of how we bought Alaska from Russia.


This is very much true. I'm most familiar with the history of the Midwestern & Northeastern USA. Definitely in the first half of the 1900's you had various racial blocs sticking with each other whether it was the WASPS (probably large chunks of Germanic descent & some of English descent), the Poles, the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, African-Americans, etc. Sure, a lot of them did business with each other at the shops in town or worked at the same large manufacturing companies, but they kept more of their personal business "in the family" so to speak.

Political 'war' and actual fighting between various ethnic groups was a major issue. So was the lack of assimilation which lead to some dicey situations during wartime. Example: Hoboken, NJ was placed under martial law because the population was a strong German enclave. Many residents only spoke German and had not assimilated. Their loyalty was cast in doubt during the war.

Balkanization of America was one of the major reasons that immigration was restricted in the late 19th and first quarter of the 20th century. By 1924 (until 1965) immigration was cut down to a trickle, with preference given to ethnicity based on who was already here (Europeans only.. Asian immigration was banned).

Post: #319

(06-24-2018 02:54 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  Wasn’t the territory we took in the Mexican American war mostly inhabited by Europeans (Spaniards and British descendants)? Not the Aztec/ mesitizos that inhabit current Mexico.


Yes, The Mexican government actually invited Anglos into the Texas and Arizona territories. The purpose was two fold:

1. Encourage economic development (Anglo-American culture was economically a lot more productive that what was inherited from Spain).

2. Act as an armed buffer to raiding native tribes.

Texas wanted independence due to abuses and corruption of the Mexican government. A lot of Mexicans living in the Texas territory joined with the Anglo settlers in rebellion.

When the Mexian American war was over, a majority of the Mexicans living in the areas annexed by the United States stayed put.



In the mid 1840s the US went to war with Mexico which ended in Mexico’s defeat. The US wanted to annex all of Mexico and make it part of the United States. Ultimately this did not happen due to-

Looking back they should have annexed all of it. A border with Guatemala is much easier to secure.

When the USA bailed out Mexico in 1995, there was some talk of instead of just giving Mexico bailout money, the US government should instead purchase the Baja peninsula. Sort of how we bought Alaska from Russia.


This is very much true. I'm most familiar with the history of the Midwestern & Northeastern USA. Definitely in the first half of the 1900's you had various racial blocs sticking with each other whether it was the WASPS (probably large chunks of Germanic descent & some of English descent), the Poles, the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, African-Americans, etc. Sure, a lot of them did business with each other at the shops in town or worked at the same large manufacturing companies, but they kept more of their personal business "in the family" so to speak.

Political 'war' and actual fighting between various ethnic groups was a major issue. So was the lack of assimilation which lead to some dicey situations during wartime. Example: Hoboken, NJ was placed under martial law because the population was a strong German enclave. Many residents only spoke German and had not assimilated. Their loyalty was cast in doubt during the war.

Balkanization of America was one of the major reasons that immigration was restricted in the late 19th and first quarter of the 20th century. By 1924 (until 1965) immigration was cut down to a trickle, with preference given to ethnicity based on who was already here (Europeans only.. Asian immigration was banned).

Is this surprising? Mexico, after all, was a European colony. So it shouldn't be that surprising that certain regions were heavily European.

1810 census by the vice royality of Spain. Pg 13.
http://aleph.org.mx/jspui/bitstream/5678...8-0327.pdf

Also, you don't really need a race reason to justify the Mexican-American War. Its faulty logic at best anyway. Its like Mexico saying "We're gonna invade Southern California, cuz meeeh its 50% Mexican."

Texans like any other human beings wanted to determine their own destiny and decided, rightly so, that the United States would be a far better country to live in than Mexico.

Post: #320

Post: #321

< Hilarious vid - the illegals were completely unfazed by the border patrol. And the smuggler too just ran a bit and was already in safety.

What is the big deal with the smuggler?

I don't believe that the wall will be coming anytime soon.

Post: #322

(06-23-2018 01:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Turning the invasion up to 11:

Quote:Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.

“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.

While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner. (RELATED: Mag: Mexican Official Dreams Of Trump Assassination, But Most Urge Prudence)

Obrador in April delivered speech criticizing Trump and promising that Mexico will not become a “piñata” for any foreign government, Global News reports.

The former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador holds progressive populist views. The 64-year-old ran unsuccessfully for president twice before, according to DW.

Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added.

So much for a Mexican ally...

The top runner is someone who says how much Mexico sucks and how he'll help people move to the USA! Illegal immigration is going to be massive once this guy gets in!

according to this article the translation is incorrect:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...migration/

doesn't sound logical too imho asking all your citizens to leave your country... Who will pay taxes then? And you'll have a braindrain too...

don't know what is the truth though, I wasn't there so I wont judge, just posting what I've encountered...

Post: #323

I think we are getting closer to one of the key pieces of the Mexico to USA flow of human traffic. The coyote network...

Coyataje

Gotta treat it just like you'd treat the Mexican drug cartels. As a large criminal enterprise.

Post: #324

(06-26-2018 03:43 AM)Meliorare93 Wrote:  according to this article the translation is incorrect:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...migration/

doesn't sound logical too imho asking all your citizens to leave your country... Who will pay taxes then? And you'll have a braindrain too...

don't know what is the truth though, I wasn't there so I wont judge, just posting what I've encountered...

They're probably willing to give up income taxes in exchange for folks remitting money back over to Mexico from the United States via Western Union, etc.

Post: #325

(06-26-2018 03:43 AM)Meliorare93 Wrote:  according to this article the translation is incorrect:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...migration/

doesn't sound logical too imho asking all your citizens to leave your country... Who will pay taxes then? And you'll have a braindrain too...

don't know what is the truth though, I wasn't there so I wont judge, just posting what I've encountered...

The different translation barely changes anything. He says, "if necessary," they can start a new life in the USA.

Politifact is bullshit, as usual:

Quote: "Soon, very soon, after the victory of our movement, we will defend migrants all over the American continent and the migrants of the world who, by necessity, must abandon their towns to find life in the United States; it’s a human right we will defend."

López Obrador is not telling anyone to flood the border, but saying that he will defend those who find themselves with no other option but to relocate to the United States.

No other option but to relocate? Why can't they build a life in Mexico?