Illegal immigrants from Mexico , could this be the price the U.S. is paying for what they failed to do in...?

Question

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 1848

The treaty provided for the Mexican Cession, in which Mexico ceded 1.36 million km² (525,000 square miles) (55%[3] of its pre-war territory) to the United States in exchange for US$15 million (equivalent to $313 million in 2006 dollars) and the ensured safety of pre-existing property rights of Mexican citizens in the transferred territories, the latter of which the United States in a significant number of cases failed to honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_G...

Answer 1

no the two are totally unrelated

Answer 2

No.

Don't you just love it.  This person cites an article that says an article by this name doesn't exist.  Way to fact check.

In reality, the Mexicans messed up any chance this treaty had themselves.  The Gadsen Purchase renegotiated and superseded the previous treaty.

The negotiation of the treaty presented many knotty problems, mostly caused by the Mexicans' sense of honor and their stubborn refusal to admit defeat. After Gen. Winfield Scott had captured Veracruz and pushed into the interior of Mexico, President James K. Polk and Secretary of State James Buchanan sent Nicholas P. Trist, from the Department of State, to join him in the hope that with plenipotentiary powers and full instructions the two could take advantage of any crack in Mexican resolve to push through negotiations. Scott and Trist managed to establish communications with the Mexican government by way of British legation officials in Mexico City, who were anxious to see peace return before Mexico was entirely crushed. For a time the Mexican president, Antonio López de Santa Anna,qv seemed willing to consider a negotiated peace, and Scott decided to "encourage" him by occupying the Valley of Mexico and threatening Mexico City, goals he accomplished after several bloody but victorious battles. In August-September 1847 Trist met with Mexican commissioners to discuss terms, but the talks broke down, and Scott was forced to occupy Mexico City. Thereupon Santa Anna resigned, and the rest of the Mexican government fled to a provisional capital about a hundred miles to the north. At this point an indefinite deadlock might have resulted, for the weak Mexican administration succeeding Santa Anna dared not act, and the Mexican congress, which split into a number of peace and war factions, did everything possible to avoid responsibility. By the end of November, after weeks of jockeying, Trist, aided by British diplomats, managed to persuade the Mexicans to send a peace commission to Mexico City and at least exchange proposals. At that point a dispatch arrived from the impatient Polk instructing Trist to give up the effort and return home. Pressed by Scott and the other American generals and by the British, Trist decided to disobey his orders and stay.

The active negotiations, which lasted about a month, were delayed at every point by haggling over details and slow correspondence between the Mexican commissioners and their government, a hundred miles away, which resisted every concession. At first the Mexicans would recognize Texas territory only to the Nueces River. They also resisted the cession of New Mexico, and a particularly bitter argument arose over the cession of San Diego, which they denied had ever been a part of Upper California. The American purchase price of $15 million represented half of the original Mexican demand. When Polk received the completed treaty he was affronted by Trist's disobedience and stopped his salary. On further consideration, he decided to submit the treaty to the Senate because it met his minimum instructions concerning the boundary and because any continuation of the war risked serious disunion in the country during an election year. The nation received the treaty with relief, and the Senate approved it after a few minor changes, with a few votes to spare over the required two-thirds majority. The execution of the treaty was generally satisfactory to both sides, except for its requirement that the United States prevent Indian raids into Mexico, an almost impossible task on a long, unsettled frontier. As Americans came to desire more Mexican territory south of the Gila River for a railroad route, a new treaty, the Gadsden Purchase, was negotiated in 1853 to make the desired changes.

Answer 3

Nope,nice try though.

Answer 4

When the claims for land were brought before the court of the United States, the people with land claims said their land extended from the skull of the range cow down to the first split in the arroyo.   The claims seriously overlapped, and in several cases, the land claimed included all the land that there was.

Most of the people who made claim were absentee owners with the exception of California.  The land in such places as Arizona, Texas and New Mexico was so rough people didn't live there unless they were the native Americans who frequently scalped anything that looked like a Spaniard or a Mexican.  Mexican Soldiers were kept alive for a while after they were scalped.. to boot.  THAT story goes on and on with dozens of people claiming huge amounts of land that while trying to scam the judge.  WRONGGGGG thing to do.

As soon as you left the coast of California in those days, California turned into a swamp.  Central California was the biggest swamp in the United States at the time.  More malaria, mosquitoes, Grizzle Bears and scally wags in that central valley than in the whole of the world some have said.  But there were NOT any ranchers in that country, and not body could claim anything except very, very, very dry desert.  Until Los Angles stole their water, the Paiute owned the only land worth owning in the south, and you just did not go there without their permission.  The Spanish did NOT own that land at all.

On and on.  The whole thing is silly.  And if you look, the Mexicans heard what was offered and they jumped at the chance.  The land was simply not something they wanted while honor was fumbling all over the place..  And when you say the United States took 55% of the land that belonged to Mexico, almost all of that land was non-productive, and barren as all get out.  Ocean front property in Arizona... exactly.

If we are paying for that business today.. we need to make sure Mexico pays for stealing it from the Indians, and scalping those Indians for not going to church.

Answer 5

no.

this illegal immigration problem is the result of political correctness and american's fear of standing up to it.

the illegal immigrants have proven themselves to be not just a nuisance to america, but a danger to it's very existence. but our impotent government and the bleeding heart liberals keep rewarding them and THAT'S why it's a problem.

if someone breaks into your home and you give him food, money, medical care, education, and your young hot daughter to rape, he'll keep coming back.

however, if he were to face three angry snarling pit bulls everytime he tried to enter your home, he'd run the other way and never come back.

unfortunately thanks to political correctness, our governmnet take the former approach.

Answer 6

Just as legal as the borders set by the Treaty of Córdoba, after the Mexican War of Independence. Otherwise, some of it should go to Spain, not Mexico. Had Mexico refused to sign, refused to accept $15 million dollars for the land, or refused to let the U.S. assume 3.25 million in Mexican debts, there might be a case. However, as Mexico signed, and accepted the money, I'd say its pretty legal and binding. Also legal is the clause in the G.H. Treaty that allows either country to do what is necessary to secure their borders.

Answer 7

No - no correlation here ie - you are way off.....way, way off.

Meanwhile the illegal migrant issue is costing $340 billion dollars to the US taxpayers annually.

Answer 8

A little biased are we? You realize that have no argument so now you say America deserves this. By your own statement you reveal that you view illegal immigrants as a scourge to this country, but we deserve it because we are white right?

Answer 9

with all this complex law of goverment, we all know in the end the illegal immigrants all going to pay,

Answer 10

That was then, this is NOW.

If there was a problem of not honoring a legal committment by the USA government, suit could be initiated.

Last time I hear, there was no issue, nor was there and legal action against the USA for this.

Course it could be that the issue of illegals was manifest by confused people who's basis for how they live their lives is to BREAK THE LAWS when it is convenient for them and then to make up some mumbo jumbo about a problem they supposedly had about a pre agreement.

Balderdash!

Answer 11

?

Answer 12

I own the Blackpool Tower in Lancashire, England.  No really, my family 10 or so generations ago owned the land that it now sits on.  I should be able to live in England because of that reason and how dare the English expect me to follow their immigration laws.

By the way the above was sarcasm for those who didn't catch on.

In short no, that is a ridiculous argument.

Answer 13

NO- this is the left trying to get more voters that respond to the promise of entitlements.  This big greedy corporations deciding they want to pay slave wages and no benefits to workers. This is Mexico encouraging it citizens to come over here so they do not have a revolution over there. This is people stomping on both the Mexican and American citizens. Think about it, the Mexican come over here and work for nothing and it eventually drags down the pay for Americans. The people do not win.