A Short History of U.S. Mexican Relations

In viewing the current controversy concerning the illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States I feel compelled to reexamine the history of U.S. Mexican relations concerning our common border and the several conflicts between our two nations.

The first conflict was caused by large numbers of American migrating into that area of Mexico now known as Texas. Although now lionized in American history these immigrants agitated the Mexican authorizes which ultimately led to open warfare and resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Texas in 1836. Admitted to statehood in 1845, it was the first piece of Mexico to become part of the US.

President Polk sent a representative named John Slidell with an offer to “adjust the border with Mexico” and to purchase California and New Mexico. American war hawks, who wished to see slave holding territories extended argued for war and in 1846 General Zachary Taylor provoked a border incident by occupying Point Isabel at the mouth of the Rio Grande, which act ultimately led to the Mexican War. The successful prosecution of this war led to the 1848 treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo which deprived Mexico of what now is known as California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas.Serandipitously gold discovered in California now became American gold. Grants of citizenship in the original treaty were striken before ratification. This overreaching grab of territory was justified by a cry of “manifest destiny” a popular American slogan of that era, the essence of which was it was America’s destiny to own all of the land to the shores of the Pacific. Mexican land grants were upset in many places, putting people off the land their families had farmed for centuries.

In 1852 James Gadsden, negotiated a further acquisition of land along the Southern boundary of New Mexico and Arizona, adding an additional 30,000 square miles of Mexico to the United States. A half century of civil wars and revoutions followed, displacing many Mexicans who came north in serarch of work and security.

In 1916 the US invaded Mexico in a unsuccessful attempt to capture Pancho Villa after his across the border raid into Columbus, New Mexico. During W.W.I Germany attempted, without success, to induce Mexico to go to war against the United States. Thereafter our relations with Mexico improved, largely to assist American economic interests utilize cheap Mexican labor as agricultural workers along the border.

Due to the need for agricultural workers, especial during and after W.W.II, Mexicans were induced to travel North to work on American farms and ranches under the bracero program. They were permitted to cross the border for many years without any restrictions and became the predominant minority in the American Southwest. We were happy to employ and exploit them until recent concerns surfaced, with respect to their numbers and the political implications of their presence.

You can easily distinguish Mexicans from Cubans or other hispanics. They are the soft-spoken, quiet ones with soft brown eyes who only ask, por favor, for a little compassion, some understanding since they have worked very hard and have waited for a long time. They are descendants of the Aztecs, brutalized by Spanish Conquistadors, overwhelmed by Texans, Frenchmen and a hundred years of mistreatment by their own, more fortunate countrymen.
We stole half of their country and treated them like second class people thereafter but what the hell. They lost and that was a long time ago. They were the defeated at San Jacinto, and at Chapultepec; they were the broceros who worked for substandard wages picking your crops by your invitation for generations; guest workers who you now call illegal immigrants. They ask that after years of faithful, and underpaid service, they are not treated like criminals, told to go back where you came from and reapply, go to “the end of the line”, pay a fine. They think they are being singled out for having the temerity to reach above their station, to think they could participate in the American dream, after being here for so long. Por favor, despite what Ross Perot said that Mexicans could aspire to nothing higher than owning their own outhouses, they tried to become participating members of the American society, not to stand to one side as second class persons, to be satisfied with their subservient position, to work and keep their mouths shut.

Those who now shout “no amnesty” refuse to make any distintion between those who have been here for many years and those that crossed the Rio Grande the day before yesterday. I think some of this hostility is a thinly disguised anti-Mexican bias which has always been latent in the culture of the Southwest. They are different, tan, speak spanish, not like us. Nevermind that once all of this land was Mexico, now it is the United States and we call the shots.

Even the concept of statutes of limitations seems not to apply. A forgiveness of all crimes, save murder due to passage of time will not be employed to excuse these Mexican who have had the temerity to stay here, to be gainfully employed and raise their families here, when they should have returned to the barrios of Mexico to starve out of sight.

After half a century of unregulated entry we are now concerned with the illegality of their presence and how others are disadvantaged thereby. While it is totally appropriate to be concerned with illegal entry into the U.S., our retroactive horror of the Mexican’s presence by invitation both facile and insincere. We have a problem of our own creation and now contend that those people who we were happy to exploit for almost 100 years are now the villains in the piece.

As a matter of justice I believe it is appropriate and necessary to consider the facts I have recited here, to take these matters into account in determing what would be a proper decision concerning Mexicans living in the United States.

A self rightous declaration that they have violated our laws and are therefore illegal is both reprehensable and not in accord with our finer sense of justice. A better solution must be found rather than to blandly and thoughlessly say “no amensty.”