out of the mouths of babes

[Twin Fist]

This clip is from the floor of the arizona state assembly.
It is chilling.



http://chicksontheright.com/2011/03/23/attention-townspeople-i-have-four-words-for-these-students/

 

[K831]

I live in AZ, and am routinely told by Hispanics that they are "taking their land back" while our "weak leaderships sits back and lets them".

What's infuriating is that they are correct. Well, accept that it isn't there land. But try giving them a little bit of history and see how it goes over.

 

[Empty Hands]

Nm

 

[Sukerkin]

Speaking about babes from the South, here's one of my favourites:

[yt]TD2mrQE7snc[/yt]

 

[Sukerkin]

As to the video in the OP, assuming that this was not exageration or fabrication, then that was a deplorable state of affairs in a school! If it is representative of general attitudes then it does not bode well for harmonious integration.

 

[seasoned]

Speaking about babes from the South, here's one of my favourites:

[yt]TD2mrQE7snc[/yt]

Breath taking.........

 

[K831]

As to the video in the OP, assuming that this was not exageration .

It really isn't. Come down to AZ, I'll personally take you to my moms med-surge floor, the emergency room, the DMV and a few of my college friends class rooms. The entitlement, racism, disrespect and threats will blow your mind.

Then we can roll out to the desert at 4am to one of my favorite riding spots and watch the illegals dump garbage in the beautiful landscape for a few hours. You see, they don't like to pay the 7 dollar fee at the dump.

 

[billc]

We sure do need some more multiculturalism. They seem to hate america so much they want to make it just like mexico.

 

[MA-Caver]

If history could be changed... If Sam Houston killed Santa Anna after capturing him and moved his army down south to take over Mexico and annexed it into Texas (which would later become part of the U.S.), all the way down to Panama or even just to Costa-Rica ... just imagine how different things would be.
No illegal immigration problems, different mindset of the people, drug trade would have a much harder time because of a smaller border to protect/watch over, etc, etc.

But history is what it is... question is what is to be future history?

Stolen land? It was acquired during an act of war... war against Mexico, they lost and were driven back and SOLD their northern territories to the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War
If they want it back then they can petition an act of war against the U.S. and lose again... at a great cost of life... theirs. Or take all that drug money and buy it back... at present value. Provided that it IS for sale.

Personally I got nothing against Mexicans per se' except those who are in this country and trying to find a better life but are breaking our laws. If they're in this country and just trying to find a better life and are keeping to themselves while awaiting citizenship then fine as long as the application is in.
Predominate language here is English look at the signs all around and nearly everything that you read is printed in English from soup labels to the delivery trucks that bring them to the stores. I'm guessing that 90% of the books in an average public library is in English. So learn it if you want to live here. It'll make navigating the streets a lot easier when you can read the street signs.

As for the kids that treat the classroom and teachers with disdain, kick 'em out... don't waste my tax dollars on something that isn't wanted or appreciated, the education that is being provided though they're illegally in this country but tolerated.

I agree... don't like it GTFO and make your own country a better place before trying to improve mine.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Stolen land? It was acquired during an act of war... war against Mexico, they lost and were driven back and SOLD their northern territories to the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War

Not that I disagree with the gist of your post, but saying they sold it to the US is a stretch. It's like saying you can choose between me killing you and taking your car, or you selling it to me for a dollar and I only shoot you in the leg.

And if I read this

In 1810, Moses Austin, a banker from Missouri, was granted a large tract of land in Texas, but died before he could bring his plan of recruiting American settlers for the land to fruition. His son, Stephen F. Austin, succeeded and brought over 300 families into Texas, which started the steady trend of American migration into the Texas frontier. In 1829, as a result of the large influx of American immigrants, the Americans outnumbered Mexicans in the Texas territory. The Mexican government decided to bring back the property tax, increase tariffs on U.S. shipped goods, and prohibit slavery. The settlers rejected the demands, which led to Mexico closing Texas to additional immigration. However, Americans continued to flow into the Texas territory.

Then it seems as if Texas did indeed belong to Mexico. The US invaded, took it, and gave the Mexican government a pittance to make it semi legit (sale at gunpoint).
Now, I agree what's done is done and there is no turning back the clock, 170 years is long enough that the argument is moot.

However, the US can't really take the high road here, considering that Texas was pretty much stolen from Mexico in the first place.
Texas now belongs to the US and they are right to want to keep it. The best argument you have is that it's been US property for about 170 years and you are hanging on to it because it's yours now. What the US doesn't have is the moral high ground in this particular case.

The irony is sweet. Modern day Americans complaining about illegal immigrants crossing the border, while it is exactly how they settled it when it still belonged to Mexico

 

[Sukerkin]

There's a bit of a difference between possession by conquest a couple of centuries ago, when that's what the rules of the game were, and doing the same thing now.

To claim that it's not the moral high ground because the land was taken by force of arms is a bit if a non-starter as an argument. After all, the entirety of the United States was pretty much taken that way. It's looked down on badly now but at the time, might did indeed make right.

 

[Bruno@MT]

There's a bit of a difference between possession by conquest a couple of centuries ago, when that's what the rules of the game were, and doing the same thing now.

To claim that it's not the moral high ground because the land was taken by force of arms is a bit if a non-starter as an argument. After all, the entirety of the United States was pretty much taken that way. It's looked down on badly now but at the time, might did indeed make right.

Correct. From a legal, and even practical point of view, you are absolutely right. This is water under the bridge. From a moral point of view, I wonder if Americans would see it that way if the roles were reversed. Something tells me they would not.

Noone is alive today who was there at the time, and the sins of the father are not the sins of the son. Yet there is no denying that the US conquered Texas first by the flow of illegal immigrants, and then by force of arms. They can't really say 'this is not morally right' without also admitting that they came about it in a manner that is morally equally wrong.

That is why I say that there is no high ground here. There is only the practical side of the matter, which cynically states that ownership is 90% of the law, as well as the fact that the current borders are recognized by the UN and all their members.

You are also right about initial ownership, yet that is a moot point, since a) there is no sufficiently large group of people alive which can claim ownership b) much of the US was uninhabited, or so I was told.