It would seem
that certain ‘people of indefinite nationality’ would like to assert that the
United States, or large portions thereof, belong to a certain ethnic group, and
the Caucasians should leave, or at least shut up. We are just immigrants, they
say, and stole the land for the true owners, the ‘native americans.’ These
folks want much of the United States to be returned to Mexico (who has done
SUCH a good job with what they have already… /sarcasm)
Yes, my
great-great-blah blah grandparents came to this country as immigrants, but
their children were NATIVE American Citizens. Not native American as in teepees
and buffalo hunts, but in terms of citizenship in the United States of America.
If you want to
start the game of saying that makes ME an immigrant, we can do that too.
It all just
depends on how far back you wish to go…
My family
started showing up in the 1600s.
Most Hispanics
have European blood from Spain starting back in the 1500s: that makes them
immigrants to the entire new world just as I am.
According to
the Smithsonian, the ‘Native Americans’ (Incans, Aztecs, Apache, you name ‘em)
invaded the new world via land bridge around 7,000 years ago, and were not the
first to do so. They were Asian Steppe people (for the most part) following the
wild game; those already here (Clovis people, with European skull
characteristics) were either destroyed, enslaved, or died out.
The Clovis people
arrived as much as 12,000 years ago, and could still be considered immigrants,
since man ‘evolved’ in Africa and NOBODY originated in the new world!
Since 99.999%
of the Hispanic and Indian inhabitants of the new world have ancestors showing
up as recently as 7,000 years ago, they are also 'immigrants by this standard.'
Heck, the Arabs
and the Jews are STILL arguing over land disputes from 5,000 years ago: who is
an immigrant there?
Back on point:
What does it matter if your family arrived in America 400, 600, or 7,000 years
ago? We are not talking about ancient history, but about civilized nation
states, who sign treaties, make war, conquer, or cede land to each other.
Mexico gave up
her rights north of the border when she scrapped the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, telling the INVITED gringo Mexican
citizens in Texas that they were no longer citizens and had none of the
rights promised them when they moved there. You see, the gringos were asked to settle in
Texas, because they would be loyal to Mexico and were industrious. Ads were placed in newspapers along the east
coast to bring them in.
Yes, they were
lured in, granted citizenship, developed infrastructure and farms, but suddenly
must leave or be subject to lawlessness by
the Mexican government. That action
led directly to the loss of Mexico’s northern provinces (remember the Alamo?),
and is binding to this day. The Mexican
regime of that time showed a substantial lack of good faith in dealings with
other nations, and (like many other nations before and since) paid for their
arrogance.
Let’s look at
each side of the border today: deserts to the north bloom, highways promote
commerce, and the rule of law (mostly) protects the innocent. South of that border? Not so much.
Deserts are still arid wastelands.
Gangs kill without consequences, many times with the blessing of the
corrupt government. Citizens are serfs,
and the rule of law is a joke. And groups
like La Raza (and how is a group
calling itself ‘the race’ not racist?) want to return whole states to that
system…
The great
Southwest is far better off with the border where it is.
And the
‘norteamericanos’ (aka ‘gringos’) will fight to keep it that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment