Immigration as war by other means

| | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The Grand Pufti left a string of thoughtful comments to this earlier post, some of which got held up by Movable Type and forced him to rewrite numerous times (sorry, muchacho!). If you want to read an intelligent argument about immigration from the progressive point of view, you could do a lot worse than to scroll through his contributions there. Personally, I'm usually more interested in reading an opposing viewpoint thoughtfully argued than a rote recitation of my side's talking points.

He then left this comment to yesterday's immigration post:

"Mexicans see the Western U.S. as part of Mexico that was stolen from them 150 years ago," he says. "They believe this with all their heart..."

Those crazy Mexicans, thinking that the Western US used to be part of Mexico until the US took it in a war. Where did they ever come up with such a wacko idea? What a bunch of radicals, READING BOOKS ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN REAL HISTORY. It was called the Mexican-American War, my poor product of the American educational system

To which I reply:

Er...yeah, Puftolicious - I actually was aware of that historical fact. As are many Americans I would guess. The United States won the land in a war.

So maybe that was unjust, right? So now the Mexicans are within their rights to try and take it back? Fine. Turnabout is fair play. The U.S. took the land from them when they lost the war, now the Mexicans are perfectly welcome to try to return the favor. You'll get no argument from me on that point.

From a cosmic perspective, the Mexicans have a right to take back the Western U.S., just like the Boers have a right to take back South Africa, and the Muslims have a right to take back Spain, and the Tibetans have a right to take back Tibet, and the Ottowa have a right to take back Michigan, and the Jews have a right to take back Israel, and the Irish have a right to take back Ireland, and the Persians have a right to take back Mesopotamia.

And the, uh, U.S. has a right to take back Texas and Arizona and California.

Any group has the right to take any piece of land they can conquer and occupy and keep, historically speaking. It's a pretty tangled web unless you send everything back via time machine 10,000 years and say, "Let's start all over again."

The RELEVANT point, however, is what most Americans think of that. Because that is hardly advertised as what the Mexicans are doing. Quite the opposite, you must admit. Because that would cause the welcome mat to be pulled in pronto.

My point is, if the Mexican immigrants don't plan to assimilate into American culture, let's make sure those cards are laid out on the table.

And to follow up a step further: The ideologists promoting the reconquista (you know, the ones you said might represent 50 people in a crowd of thousands) tend to be espousing ideas that would raise a LOT of eyebrows if more widely circulated.

The Mexica Movement has little use for capitalism, or Christianity, or Western Civilization, or white people, or a number of other cultural artifacts we Europeans have come to take for granted.

Tomato, to-mah-to: It's different histories, that's all. You know, less of Thomas Aquinas at Cologne, more of human sacrifice and cannibalism at Tenochtitlán.

Finally, my personal view is, the immigration problem is a war of sorts.

Scroll through the immigration -related posts here and that theme should be blazingly evident. I even stated it explicitly in the first 'Dispatches' post.

You, my friend, have hit the nail right on the head. And I'm not dismissing your argument - not by any means.

I hope you are able to gather from my conclusion to the post that I'm well aware of what is happening and I'm not just sputtering in outrage that Mexicans should "dare to encroach" on American soil.

They are coming, without a doubt. If they are not coming to become Americans, but to establish a "Mexica" society, let's all have our eyes wide open to that fact.

(debate continued below the fold)

Pufti replies:

so you're saying that Mexicans have this underlying objective of reclaiming half of the US as part of Mexico, and your evidence is some fringe group out of southern California, a report from a group of "Minutemen" staking out a day labor center in //MARYLAND//, and the fact that Mexican history classes teach historical facts?

you're telling me that the 40-year-old guy from Bolivia who washes dishes at the restaurant I used to work at and sends 3/4 of his paycheck home so his kids can go to school is actually an undercover Aztec plotting revenge for Chris Columbus?

that's so neo-con.

look at this quote from the Mexica recruitment site:


Nice movement. They're not even regional, they're local!

"Mexica doesn't care about capitalism..."

That's the least of our worries. Haven't you heard, a new Marxist-Leninist ideology has taken hold of America's youth and is spreading like wildfire! Look out behind you!

Heh, it's actually entertaining in a quaint sort of way to see there is still a vibrant communist movement here among the youth, like visiting colonial WIlliamsburg or Amish country. I think my own beliefs were pretty close to Marxist when I was 17.

More power to them; at least they are learning to think critically. Presumably they will all grow up.

As I've said before, I don't know how widespread the reconquista ideology is. It goes beyond So. Cal, that's for sure. I saw Anahuac t-shirts ("I am not 'Latino,' I am not 'Hispanic'...") in San Antonio a couple weeks ago and I think I saw pictures of the signs at a number of rallies. There are actually a few Web sites on the issue - that one may only be for one area - but the links are all saved on my other computer for a hypothetical lengthy post I intend to write so that info will have to wait.

While I probably am 'neo-con' on enough issues for you to lump me in with the rest of them, I personally don't think all or even most immigrants from Mexico are closet Aztecs who want to place tracts of U.S. territory under socialist Mexican government.

But I'm sitting here on the East Coast and have little direct knowledge of how things are socially in the Southwest. The ideological aspect of this movement bears watching - that's all I'm saying and that's why I write about it.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Immigration as war by other means.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

ok, let's keep an eye on Mexica and the young communists and other fringe groups to make sure they don't blossom into baby al qaeda's. (I see the KKK claims to be a movement of white Christians, so if you know any white Christians, I'd keep an eye on them too)

anyway... what do you think about the immigration situation?
I think it's all about economics.

but most of the typical reasons you hear for supporting strict regulations of immigration are pretty weak. Claims that immigrants damage the economy or raise crime rates can pretty easily be refuted.

One reason that seems to have some teeth is the security issue. that is, the fact that any crazy person could waltz right into the country with a bomb strapped to their back.

what people who are opposed to legislation like 4437 need to realize is that a terrorist attack would be the immigrant community's worst nightmare. We've already passed the PATRIOT act, so another attack would compel politicians to pass even more extreme legislation. Given the current political climate, a terrorist attack on the US would likely lead to the most ill-conceived, draconian anti-immigration legislation to date. So in that sense, it's in the immigrant community's own interest that the borders are secure.

On the other hand, the security argument is weakened by the fact that, even though anyone can waltz into the country, there hasn't been another attack. I know the line, "al qaeda works slowly, they're biding their time" ok, but attacking a country once every 10 years doesn't sound like a very effective plan for destroying it? the idea of "terrorism" is to terrorize a population. If there really is this highly organized, global terrorist network hell bent on destroying the US, and it's so easy to get into the US, why no attacks (knock on wood)? Based on the common understanding of terrorism, we should expect to see guys sneaking in and shooting up malls on a regular basis, or blowing up a section of train track as the toxic chemical train passes through town. It'd be so easy for one bad guy to raise hell in the US. remember that DC sniper guy? and what better way to get us out of Iraq than to "fight us over here"? but that's not what's happening. there's no denying that the border is easy to cross, so the fact that we haven't seen regular terrorist attacks (a la Hamas or Hezb'allah) seems to indicate that the anti-American terrorists aren't quite as global and highly organized as we've been told. that's not to say that we ought to pretend that anti-American groups don't exist, but it does seem to take some of the urgency out of the "we need to secure the borders for the sake of national security" argument.

SPMM - you make a bunch of good points here....I'm on the road and Web access is very limited so I need to wait till later tonight or tomorrow to respond. Thanks for your patience!


Allison Trump said:

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 74854, and this game guessed it! See it here -

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here