What’s Wrong with the World

I'm not sure what Catholic teaching on immigration has to do with American national immigration policy.

Andrew, probably not a single iota more than Catholic just war theory has in relation to the national discussion on warfare.

Not enough, Andrew, in my opinion. But I am quite certain that you would prefer Catholic teaching on immigration to American immigration policy as it stands now, which has little respect for the "sovereignty of the state" or regard for "the public wealth" at all.

Catholic pro-immigration sentiments have been around for a while. In the 1970s, French conservative Jean Raspail predicted that the Catholic Church would become the world's primary anti-Western, pro-Third World immigration institution.

On a related note, Pope Benedict XVI delivered an address to the National Association of Italian Municipalities on March 12:

Citizenship must be considered today within the context of globalization, which is characterized, among other things, by large migration flows. Faced with this reality, as I mentioned above, it is necessary to combine solidarity and respect for the law, lest they upset social life, and the principles of law and cultural and even religious tradition which formed the Italian nation must be taken into account. This need is felt especially by you, as local administrators, closer to people's daily lives. A special dedication to the public service of citizens is always required of you, [in order] to be promoters of cooperation, solidarity, and humanity. History has left us an example of Mayors whose prestige and commitment marked the life of the community: you rightly mentioned the figure of [the Servant of God] Giorgio La Pira, an exemplary Christian and an esteemed public administrator. May this tradition continue to bear fruit for the good of the country and its citizens! For this I assure you of my prayers, and I urge you, distinguished friends, to trust the Lord, because - as the Psalm says - "unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman guards in vain" (127.1).

HT: Rorate Caeli

... anti-Western, pro-Third World ...

Because in MAR's twisted mind it is impossible to be pro-Western and pro-Third World at the same time.

Look - I have no more patience for you, Matthew. Make that your last comment on this or any of my posts.

As land is a common good, the "right" to migrate (and occupy unoccupied) land can be argued to be a part of natural law. But this right isn't the same as the right to "join" a political community, much less the "right to obtain" citizenship.

Agreed, T. Chan.

Well, Jeff, this post is not entitled "Improving Immigration" but rather getting it right. It would be news to me if someone were to suggest that America does not have a perfectly sufficient, sane, moral, non-liberal (ie. pre-1965) tradition to draw upon to get at the correct immigration policy for the United States. This is a subject that every generation of Americans from colonial days on up has had to deal with and debate. What did they say and do? Why did they say and do it?

Andrew, I'm not an expert on the history of America's pre-1965 immigration policies, but it is certain that the country's needs and obligations today are not what they once were (e.g., we're all out of wild frontier), and will likely change in the future. So the value of looking at our historical policies for guidance is limited. What we need are principles, a starting place rooted in Christian morality, and American history is less than "perfectly sufficient" in that regard. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims_of_Yalta

As land is a common good, the "right" to migrate (and occupy unoccupied) land can be argued to be a part of natural law. But this right isn't the same as the right to "join" a political community, much less the "right to obtain" citizenship.

It's only a matter of time before sufficient individuals migrate to a region, form an ethnic enclave and then demand to become part of the political community. We are witnessing this in Europe today as it happened during the last centuries of Roman civilization in the West.

I really don't think you've thought out the implications of this "individual right to migrate" when it scales upward as hundreds of thousands or even millions of individuals choose to exercise it.

I really don't think you've thought out the implications of this "individual right to migrate" when it scales upward as hundreds of thousands or even millions of individuals choose to exercise it.

I agree Mike. It's all about numbers.

"Quantity has a quality all its own."
- Vladimir Lenin

It's all about numbers.

What do you call a region where demographics put a minority of the human beings that occupy it part of the political community?

Sparta!

Mexican is the new Helot...

I can't help wondering if people who talk about a "right to migrate" are confusing the right to leave Country A with the right to enter Country B. I have big problems with countries that close their borders to people wanting to get out. Closing borders to people wanting to come in is a whole different matter.

I think that if we are going to quote things like this:

And the States which receive the emigrants will acquire industrious citizens. In this way, the nations which give and those which receive will both contribute to the increased welfare of man and the progress of human culture.

we should consider the reality of the situation that we are in and also quote things like this:

In the letter, Hill said that a majority of students in that class refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance and when asked why told him "we are Mexicans and Americans stole our land." He said "most" of the students wrote in papers that "they were in the country illegally, White Americans are racist, and that they came here for a better life."

Hill said that when he asked the students to stop speaking Spanish in class, they told him that "Americans better learn Spanish and their customs because they are taking the land back from us." He said most students refused to open the textbook, tore out pages, and threw them at each other.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2011/03/21/20110321arizona-hispanic-students-letter-controversy.html

and this,

"If we are able to remove the illegals out of our schools, the class sizes would be reduced and the students who wanted to learn would have a better chance to do so and become productive citizens," Klein continued, quoting from the teacher's letter without revealing his identity.

http://www.kgoam810.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=112&itemid=29647669

I do not quite understand why talk of productive citizens, etc., is supposed to be part of "getting immigration right" in apparent isolation from the facts on the ground concerning America and illegal immigration from Mexico in 2011. Surely the question of _whether_ we are "acquiring industrious citizens" by the actually controversial immigration that is actually going on right now is a factual matter which cannot be determined by quoting documents addressed initially to other situations.

Lydia, clearly the illegal aliens in question are not the sort of migrants who respect the "sovereignty of the state" or "the public wealth", nor are they the "needy and decent people" of whom the Holy Father speaks. Not only does the state have no obligation whatsoever to receive them, it has a positive duty to expel them.

I agree with you, Jeff, wholeheartedly. One complication is, they're minors, and their parents may appear or may actually be more decent than these young hoodlums are. If you were convinced that a significant proportion of the established families of illegal immigrants had kids who were talking and acting like this in school, would that make a difference to you on what to do about established families? The kids have to be learning it somewhere--but perhaps that's on the street from fellow gang members.

If you were convinced that a significant proportion of the established families of illegal immigrants had kids who were talking and acting like this in school, would that make a difference to you on what to do about established families?

Yes and no. I mean, these are 8th graders, and my proposed amnesty for established families would have some conditions to be met. No school expulsions, for example, or perhaps a requirement of two letters of recommendation from teachers, or a minimum 2.5 GPA. Just throwing these out there. But I think it's possible to find proxies which, though imperfect, would effectively sort the desireables from the undesireables.

Jeff, to me it makes a different kind of difference. One way that political correctness makes us dumb is by telling us we can't use induction, we can't make any generalizations about probable behavior of groups from past data--at least not "protected groups." Now, when it comes to Muslims, you definitely see the problem with this. You don't say, "Well, not all Muslims believe in honor killing or sharia, so we have to give them the benefit of the doubt and try to disinvite Islam only in selected cases." But similarly here: When I realize that this is where Mexican illegal immigrant culture is coming from and the sort of young people it is producing en masse, I see no reason for coming up with any sort of amnesty plan for people who represent this culture.

Now, no doubt you'll say that you know specific Mexican immigrants, perhaps even illegal immigrants, who aren't like this at all. But I'm afraid that doesn't sound much different from someone's saying, "Oh, I have Muslim friends, and they aren't like that at all."

It's different for several reasons, as I see it:

1. They are generally Catholics, and Catholicism doesn't have any latent terroristic or seditious tendencies.

2. They assimilate more easily than Muslims.

3. They come from a neighboring country with whom we have a shared history.

4. Their native culture has lots to recommend it.

Lydia,

Jeff, please do not publish this comment if you think is seriously mis-represents your point of view.

It seems to me that somone coming from Jeff's perspective might see a difference between muslims who confess a different creed than he does and Mexicans, most of whom profess the same creed as himself. That these Mexicans might not be any more supportive of the current American regime than Jeff is seems somewhat irrelevant. What he has discussed as a basis for amnesty is a level of integration into the local community such that they are a part of it. Political ideas about what flag to salute or even what language to speak are of secondary importance to the prosperity of the local community and its conformity to the will of Christ.

Given Jeff's monarchist tendancies, I would expect that he would recognize that BOTH the regime in Mexico AND the regime in California are illegitimate in any case, and by all rights both lands most appropriately belong Juan Carlos of Spain, and that he and his Mexican neighbors would be subjects of the same king if the world were functioning more properly. More importantly, there is an absolute difference between Christian immigrants who would recognize the social reign of Christ the King, and those who would not. This last point is exactly the message of Archbishop Gomez.

Hello Ben. Nice to see you commenting again.

You're pretty close, except for this:

Given Jeff's monarchist tendancies, I would expect that he would recognize that BOTH the regime in Mexico AND the regime in California are illegitimate in any case, and by all rights both lands most appropriately belong Juan Carlos of Spain, and that he and his Mexican neighbors would be subjects of the same king if the world were functioning more properly.

YES - I do believe both Mexico and California would be subjects of the same king if the world were functioning properly.

NO!! - I do not believe that makes the governments in Mexico or California/USA illegitimate, and I don't believe that is the Church's position either. Until further notice from the Vatican I fully accept the legitimacy of both governments. ;-)

That these Mexicans might not be any more supportive of the current American regime than Jeff is seems somewhat irrelevant.

Say, what?????

I mean, Jeff, this is kind of shocking. I hope that I can take you to be distancing yourself quite a bit from Ben's position by what you say. Look at this: I put up a comment about hoodlums who say that we "stole" this land from Mexico, that they are going to take it back, that they don't need to speak English because they're reconquering our country, hoodlums who tear out pages in their books and join gangs, they prevent other students from learning, and what Ben takes from this is, "Oh, they don't recognize the current American regime."

That's seriously confused stuff. A crazy version of Catholicism, in fact. No, Ben. The problem is that they are totally, viciously, blatantly, anti-American and hostile to the country that is hosting them and trying to provide them with a free education. They are reconquista thugs in the making. They *absolutely do not belong here*. I don't care less if these gangland hoods claim to be "Catholic," and no sane person should, either. Since Jeff is a sane person, I assume he doesn't. Goodness.

I hope that I can take you to be distancing yourself quite a bit from Ben's position by what you say.

Yes, Lydia, you can. I'm not that kind of a monarchist. Anyone who thinks that the government in this country is illegitimate is obviously not qualified for amnesty!

For the most part I find first and second generation Mexican-Americans to be refreshingly apolitical. They distrust politics, but will generally tip their hat to whomever is in charge. I don't interpret that as disloyalty at all.

So, the description in the comment I posted of those young men was surprising to you, doesn't match what you've seen at all? Because I have to say, it is confirmed by other things I've read as well. You may remember the boy who was told by the h.s. principal that he couldn't have an American flag on his bicycle because it would upset the Mexican students in the school and cause conflict--they considered a fellow student's having an American flag on his bike in an American school to be offensive. This reconquista stuff does not seem to me to be atypical at all.

For the most part I find first and second generation Mexican-Americans to be refreshingly apolitical.

I fear that this is not generically true. The Hispanic vote is driving the politics of many communities, and I don't mean the vote of Hispanics whose families have been here 70 or 80 years (or longer - like, longer than my ancestors). They are voting, and their vote is unfortunately similar to that of various other groups who buy into the Democratic party's mantra about group victimization. Which doesn't make them un-American all by itself, I will grant. But it isn't apolitical.

But more than that: we don't want large blocks of immigrants who are here MAINLY because they see this land as a monetary ripe plum for the picking. Since we have more potential immigrants than we can reasonably receive (without damage to our culture), we have a right to pick (of those otherwise equally qualified for our assistance) those who want to come here because they perceive in America something WORTH making an effort for, something WORTH standing up for, something WORTH leaving behind their former ties of loyalty to another land. They don't have to see this as primarily a political attitude, but such a respect for and desire for what America means will naturally flow into such political expression as they make.

But I fear that only a small portion of the immigrant population has such a desire, not merely to enjoy America, but to BE Americans through and through.

Here's the secret of immigration; the immigrants don't matter. Focusing on the poor Mexicans who just want money is pointless and counterproductive. We have copious illegal immigration for three reasons:

1. Various rich businessmen on both sides of the border want it
2. Both the soft left (Republicans) and the hard left (Democrats) want it
3. Various rich lobbies on both sides of the border want it
4. Regular Americans are usually too ignorant and cowardly to take a stand against it

So there you have it. If we did some minimal things, like workplace enforcement, refusal of all benefits to illegals, bring the entire military home and use it to close off the border, and got rid of birthright citizenship, then the problem would largely go away. We aren't going to do any of these things, so as long as we continue to invite the Mexicans here by electing people like Hussein Obama and Juan McCain then we have nothing to complain about.

The problem, as always, is not the furriners but the stupidity, ignorance, cowardice, servility, and hopelessness of Americans. Until this is realized and acknowledged, get used to the long retreat.

No, it wasn't surprising to me. I've seen similar behavior first hand in the barrios of Sacramento and Los Angeles. But not up here in farm country. The Hispanics in the small towns of the valley are different. For the most part these Hispanics - legal and illegal - are peaceful and law abiding, family-oriented and churchgoing, working the farms and ranches, staffing the small businesses, and even owning them in some cases. They do have some gang and drug issues, it's true, but it's not the majority by any stretch. It's hard to know who's legal and who isn't, but I do know some illegals for whom I would definitely favor amnesty.

I've lived with Mexicans all my life and have anecdotes galore. I once worked with a 70+ year old warehouseman (that was 20+ years ago) who was the son of illegal immigrants, which tells me that non-enforcement goes way, way back in California. Danny Castillo! He was barely literate himself, but he put his children through college on warehouseman's wages back in the day. Last week, I got my truck smogged here in town. The shop mechanic was friendly, clean-cut, spoke perfect English, and had classical music on the radio - a 2nd generation Mexican-American. The neighboring town is 80% Hispanic and mostly populated with humble, working class families. It has its problems, but unlike some neighborhoods in the big cities, there are no chain-link fences around the yards, no feral children roaming the streets, no seige mentality among the residents. The park is lovely and totally safe. It's not shangri-la, but it's nothing like the situation in other parts of the country.

The issue is one of community, not politics, the important questions have not to do with the pledge of allegiance, but to the social reign of Christ the King. Arizona students of Mexican origin, at least those in Phoenix, have a point when they talk of the land having been stolen from their ancestors. It was. The war waged against Mexico was considered to be unjust by many Americans including Henry David Thoreau, John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln at the time it was waged. Furthermore, the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which settled the war specifically granted the people living in the areas taken from Mexico the right to maintain the Spanish language. Now it is impractical to revisit all of the injustices of history because what is really important are how actual communities are prospering, but I have to say that the teacher in this instance missed the opportunity to teach some valuable lessons. Why not take the classroom disobedience of these children as an opportunity and teach them about how Abraham Lincoln opposed the war with Mexico? Or why not take the opportunity to discuss how the secularist revolution and independence from Spain so weakened these areas of Mexico because it lead to the withdrawal of the Franciscans that the local communities did not have the resources to repel the Americans? Or take the opportunity to discuss the economic developments that came with the arrival of American settlers: the railroads, advances in agriculture, mining and the foundation of the city of Phoenix?

In the Western US, for the past 160 years Mexicans and Mexican Americans have always formed a significant and integral part of our communities. These people are our neighbors and friends they have formed and will continue to form friendships and families with their "American" neighbors. My children's great-grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Mexico, he served in the US army in WWII, another great grandfather was a farmer in Michigan at that time--he didn't speak English as his first language either, but I doubt if he ever heard more than 10 words of Spanish in his life. The third of their great grandfathers was living on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma during the war, his family having been driven their during the Jackson administration--he was prohibited by public policy from learning his native language. The fourth great grandfather is the only one who had an English name. In the early 40's had just retired from the gambling career that had seen him through the depression, his brother had made a fortune as a bootlegger in Colorado.

We are and always will be a complex people in the west. We are not a homogenous group. As time goes by we are sure to get increasingly Spanish in our speech and brown in our pigmentation. Any immigration policy needs to deal with this reality. In the West men with Spanish names like Junipero Serra and Diego de Vargas are as much a part of our history as men like John Smith or William Penn or Myles Standish. I have more in common with my illegal immigrant Mexican neighbors, with whom I share a beer from time to time, than I do with some gentlemen with a Massachusetts "marriage license" in Provincetown. Neighbor means something more than fellow-citizen. True patriotism is rooted in the love of neighbor, and grows from the community one lives in, it is only tangentially related to political institutions, government borders and constitutions—this is the lesson of the American Founding. The founders learned that the question of who my neighbor is could not be answered by someone in London. What I have learned is that for many of us in the west, it likewise cannot be answered by someone in Washington.

Now it is impractical to revisit all of the injustices of history because what is really important are how actual communities are prospering, but I have to say that the teacher in this instance missed the opportunity to teach some valuable lessons. Why not take the classroom disobedience of these children as an opportunity and teach them about how Abraham Lincoln opposed the war with Mexico?

Yeah, I'm sure that would turn them into model citizens instead of gang members.

Ben, I am going to put this as politely as I can: I do not think that you are a person with whom it is possible to have a reasonable conversation on this subject.

Jeff C. knows the difference between the kinds of kids in that class and the kinds of people he wants. You, apparently, don't. You think the teacher should have fed their reconquista grudges that and _somehow_ this would help the situation. This is not good advice. To put it mildly.

The Hispanic vote is driving the politics of many communities, and I don't mean the vote of Hispanics whose families have been here 70 or 80 years (or longer - like, longer than my ancestors). They are voting, and their vote is unfortunately similar to that of various other groups who buy into the Democratic party's mantra about group victimization. Which doesn't make them un-American all by itself, I will grant. But it isn't apolitical.

Tony, in California Hispanics have the lowest voter turnout of any group in most elections - around 28% of voting age population. Because of our economy and proximity to Mexico we do have a disproportionate number of illegals, so CA may not be representative of the rest of the country in that regard. Among those who do vote, 30% vote consistently GOP. The rest vote Democrat but they are a very conservative force on ballot issues, which is important in this state.

In any case, I don't think political involvement ought to be a criteria for immigration in general or amnesty in particular. Living a good, non-political life, day-in and day-out, taking care of families and neighbors and business, does much more good than casting the wrong vote does harm.

But I fear that only a small portion of the immigrant population has such a desire, not merely to enjoy America, but to BE Americans through and through.

You're probably right. But the same can be said of Americans themselves.

I have more in common with my illegal immigrant Mexican neighbors, with whom I share a beer from time to time, than I do with some gentlemen with a Massachusetts "marriage license" in Provincetown. Neighbor means something more than fellow-citizen. True patriotism is rooted in the love of neighbor, and grows from the community one lives in, it is only tangentially related to political institutions, government borders and constitutions—this is the lesson of the American Founding.

Well said, Ben, and I agree with this.

But here's the rub. No country can tolerate an immigrant group that does not respect its government, culture, and institutions. That's just a recipe for chaos and endless strife. And even if government is only marginally related to the important things of day-to-day living, it's unavoidably important when it comes to immigration. Controlling the borders is a legitimate function of government, a matter of securing the peace. Mexicans may not have a strong sense of that, but they should know that Americans do, and if it's important to us it should be important to anyone who wants to live here. That's just basic respect.

As an aside ... it's true that the American acquisition of Mexican territory was less than honorable, but the present government of Mexico has an even weaker claim to legitimacy (as you pointed out). If we look at Mexico's previous control over vast unsettled territory in light of the Holy Father's words at the top of the page, we can see that some kind of border adjustment was all but inevitable.

Test comment

Just to pick a nit about the "gringos stole the land" claim. Whatever one thinks of the legitimacy of the Mexican War, the Mexican inhabitants in those then sparsely populated territories are unlikely to be the ancestors of recent illegal immigrants. Those original settlers and their descendants, who have always been a part of the unique regional culture of the Southwest - the Californios, the Tejanos, and others - were and are Americans. They are not immigrants of any kind, illegal or otherwise, and I am not aware of anyone who disputes their place in the national fabric. The immmigrants of recent decades, who have poured in from points farther south, are newcomers to the region.

An argument to the contrary (e.g. that somebody from Oaxaca had his patrimony stolen by the American conquest of the Southwest) is implicitly based on the acceptance of the permanent legitimacy of the lands claimed, and borders drawn, by European empires in the New World. Spain, after all, stole the land from the Indians indigenous to the Southwest. We'll leave aside for now the defense of illegals elsewhere that ends up with the absurd implicit claim that Americans stole places like Virginia and Illinois from Latinos.

So if the legitimacy of reconquista claims is going to be based on the land grabs of imperial Spain, consistency demands that anyone advancing this claim would cease to adduce "whites stole the land" in other contexts. (Unless one can offer a persuasive argument as to why Anglo-Saxon, but not Iberian, empires are morally illegitimate.) Sorry to digress, but I do get annoyed by the special pleading and historical revisionism in so much of the defense of contemporary mass illegal immigration.

So if the legitimacy of reconquista claims is going to be based on the land grabs of imperial Spain, consistency demands that anyone advancing this claim would cease to adduce 'whites stole the land' in other contexts. (Unless one can offer a persuasive argument as to why Anglo-Saxon, but not Iberian, empires are morally illegitimate.)

Indeed, that is the heart of the question.

The simplified answer is this: there were no "borders" or countries for Spain to violate. Neither were there "borders" or countries for English settlers to violate in the founding of the New England. That doesn't exempt the settlers or conquistadors of either country from acting justly, but it does indicate that "gringos stole the land" doesn't begin to address the complexity of the situation.

However, the aggression the United States against Mexico was the aggression of one European colonial nation with real borders against another European colonial nation with real borders. We supposedly lived by the same rules.

However, the aggression the United States against Mexico was the aggression of one European colonial nation with real borders against another European colonial nation with real borders. We supposedly lived by the same rules.

True. But the question is what weight, if any, we attach to that fact more than a century and a half later re immigration policy. As for "the complexity of the situation", that itself is a recent phenomenon, at least on this side of the border. (On the other side, of course, as for the losers always and everywhere, "the past is...not even past", something Americans so often and so stupidly forget or fail to perceive at all.) An American of fifty years ago would have been baffled by the contemporary ideology that insists that the fact of the conquest of the Southwest gives all Mexican citizens a right to freely make use of the territory of the United States as a "Mexico with benefits". Arguing that the Southwest is only ambiguously U.S. territory would have made about as much sense as saying we must give up sovereignty over land that we occupied by broken treaty after broken treaty with Indian nations. (And as one of those Americans older than fifty years of age, I still think that way, and I'd consider the latter acts far more dishonorable and morally tainted than the unapologetic old-school war of conquest by which we appropriated another European colonial power's territory.)

But at bottom this is all irrelevant, as the issue really boils down to Matt Weber's enumeration, above. The southern border hasn't been de facto dissolved because of some moral awakening prompting a re-evaluation of of the Mexican War, but because the "cheap labor lobby" (if you'll permit the tendentious shorthand), always a contending force in our history, now occupies a pretty much unassailable position of power and influence in national affairs.

But the question is what weight, if any, we attach to that fact more than a century and a half later re immigration policy.

Quite right. In justice, I don't think that fact can be ignored entirely, as if Mexico should be treated the same as Zimbabwe or Kazakhstan. It is relevant to immigration policy, and yes, the weight of this relevance is the question.

All else being equal (which it never is), Mexican immigration should have some degree of privilege. That's as much as I can say about it. Precisely what degree, in light of a host of mitigating factors, I can't pretend to know.

An American of fifty years ago would have been baffled by the contemporary ideology that insists that the fact of the conquest of the Southwest gives all Mexican citizens a right to freely make use of the territory of the United States as a "Mexico with benefits".

I think most Americans today are still baffled by such a claim and reject it, as they should. The question would be much more complicated if the acceded Mexican territories had been inhabited by a large, settled, and resistant population. That wasn't the case at all: the acquisition was predominantly a land grab, not a people-grab, and the people who were there grudgingly accepted (and were accepted by) their new rulers.

It should also be noted that the Mexican territories were populated at the time by thousands of Americans who were themselves illegal immigrants, many of whom, together with not a few legal immigrants who had sworn allegiance to Mexico and putatively converted to Catholicism, more or less conspired with the United States against the Mexican government. If we're nervous about illegal immigration, it might be the "what goes around comes around" syndrome.

It should also be noted that the Mexican territories were populated at the time by thousands of Americans who were themselves illegal immigrants,

Oh, come on Jeff: do you mean to tell me that in 1830 Mexico had a clearly delineated border that meant something, along with a formal law that all newly arrived persons were subject to immigration restraint? Since the US had no such policy at the time, it is difficult to imagine Mexico doing so.

If we're nervous about illegal immigration, it might be the "what goes around comes around" syndrome.

For the Southwest that may be true. For those of us who are very far away, not so much. Mexicans and others from that region might have a claim of some sort (dubious or otherwise) on the Southwest, but not on my state (Virginia).

The infuriating aspect of it is that the feds are astoundingly good at finding illegal immigrants at places like the BP clean up site, but they "can't find" the illegal immigrants that are a large minority of the population of metropolitan DC. Then they have the audacity to squawk about "constitutionality" and "legality" when Prince William County fills the vacuum they created...

All else being equal (which it never is), Mexican immigration should have some degree of privilege.

I think most Americans today are still baffled by such a claim [that Mexicans have history-based rights to migrate into U.S. territory] and reject it, as they should. The question would be much more complicated if the acceded Mexican territories had been inhabited by a large, settled, and resistant population. That wasn't the case at all: the acquisition was predominantly a land grab, not a people-grab, and the people who were there grudgingly accepted (and were accepted by) their new rulers.

Isn't there a contradiction between these two statements? On the one hand, there is no "large, settled, and resistant" population that would complicate issues of sovereignty. On the other hand, the existence of a sparse Mexican population in the grabbed territories conveys, in perpetuity, privileged migration status to anybody between the Rio Grande and Guatemala.

(I'd make the opposite argument: Mexico and the United States are two distinct national cultures, and that distinction should be preserved. Allowing rapid mass migration from a single continguous state, unlike more limited immigration from a variety of different states, will inevitably impose the culture, political and otherwise, of the "donor" state on the receiving state.)

I think most Americans today are still baffled by such a claim and reject it, as they should.

Are they? I suspect a slim majority would straightforwardly reject it, but judging from my own long-time observation of the debate, a substantial number are confused enough by their own highly-selective historical mis-education, and permeated with the "bad Europeans" spirit of the age, that they are very vulnerable to the propaganda of the anti-sovereignty interests. Even you, who are neither misinformed nor propagandized, appear to be engaging in a lot of "yes, but" on the sovereignty question. (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your point in raising various facts of U.S.-Mexican history.) If Mexicans should have privileged immigration status because of the history of the Southwest, then that gives them privileged immigration rights to the rest of the country - unless you're dreaming up some fantastical hierarchy of categories for citizens, some of whom can be confined to their "historically appropriate" part of the country. (Yes, I'm pretty sure I am misunderstanding your point here.)

But apropos of Mike T's complaint, I'm not seeing why anyone, simply by virtue of being a Mexican citizen, should have more right to migrate to Maine or Kentucky than anyone else on the globe. Not that selectively admitting certain peoples by virtue of history and culture lacks precedent - our pre-1965 immigration policy did, as a matter of fact, privilege people by history and culture, explicitly preferring those more closely related to the nation's founding stock. The invocation of history and culture in favor of that particular preference in immigration policy is no less defensible than yours; appeals to history are accessible to any number of would-be migrants. (As I can attest from encounters with smug Irish illegals, whose sense of entitlement makes La Raza operatives look humble in comparison.)

As for "what goes around comes around", as often as I've seen this point brought forward in such discussions, I admit I remain puzzled by it. What is it supposed to mean? That, since the Anglos overran and grabbed these formerly Mexican territories, Americans shouldn't object to the process being reversed? That people objecting to open borders must not know their history? That the U.S.-Mexican border is different from all the other borders in the world in having a history of conflict and conquest? I'm not being flippant here. I really don't get what point this observation is supposed to be driving home.

Oh, come on Jeff: do you mean to tell me that in 1830 Mexico had a clearly delineated border that meant something,

Absolutely. That was certainly true in California and Texas, where Anglo settlers at first were welcomed and given land grants if qualified, but subsequently treated with alarm when their numbers grew to be overwhelming and unmanageable. Both California and Texas made efforts to enforce immigration law, Texas going so far as to estabilish new presidos on the border.

along with a formal law that all newly arrived persons were subject to immigration restraint?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Isn't there a contradiction between these two statements? On the one hand, there is no "large, settled, and resistant" population that would complicate issues of sovereignty. On the other hand, the existence of a sparse Mexican population in the grabbed territories conveys, in perpetuity, privileged migration status to anybody between the Rio Grande and Guatemala.

Not "the existence of a sparse Mexican population in the grabbed territories", but the fact that both nations, in addition to sharing the same border, have in the recent past possessed the same territory. That a great many citizens naturally have family on both sides of the border should also be taken into account.

That works both ways, too: American immigration in Mexico ought to have some degree of privilege. (And apparently that privilege exists, as around 25% of Americans living abroad live in Mexico.)

Of course I hedged my statement with "all else being equal (which it never is)". Neither country is obligated to permit the immigration of anyone under ordinary circumstances - but insofar as they do, good neighborly relations would encourage some degree of reciprocal privileged status. And please note that I use the term "privilege" rather than "right": I have no patience for any group of foreigners who claim a "right" to live in the United States.

I'd make the opposite argument: Mexico and the United States are two distinct national cultures, and that distinction should be preserved.

I agree that both cultures should be preserved and perpetuated, and I would go much further than most in preserving them - but still, with a decent respect for human freedom, and recognition that culture is not an ultimate good.

Culture is never a matter of static and impenetrable blocks of purity. Every culture is an amalgamation of multiple influences in the past, and must change in some degree in order to preserve itself. There always exist gradations, especially in the borderlands, leading to some very interesting places and peoples. As the kids say these days: "it's all good", by which I mean only the variety, not necessarily the particulars.

Allowing rapid mass migration from a single continguous state, unlike more limited immigration from a variety of different states, will inevitably impose the culture, political and otherwise, of the "donor" state on the receiving state.)

Which is why I, too, am opposed to "mass migration from a contiguous state" (apart from relieving some great human catastrophe which hasn't happened yet). If we don't put a stop to it today we will scarcely have a country in 50 years.

However, a lot of mass migration is now water under the bridge, the natural result of geographical and political realities. California and the American southwest are today, and will remain in the future, heavily influenced by Hispanic culture and peoples. That much isn't going away. That much should inform our rhetoric on the subject. Very fortunately for us, the best of authentic Hispanic culture is deeply Christian and not fundamentally hostile to our own. Much good can come from it with some mutual respect and determination, but it's going to be an uphill battle. The American-educated Hispanic "leadership", a creation of the liberal elites in academia, is increasingly radicalized and hostile to Anglo-American culture and institutions.

The Catholic Church is the only force capable of opposing this radicalization and creating a culture of respect and gratitude among immigrant Mexicans. The record of the bishops is beyond miserable, but I detect a change in tone in recent months. Previously it was all about immigrant rights, but lately there have been many more concessions to "respect for the rule of law" and the rights of the host country in bishops' statements. If good Catholics can keep up the pressure, keep writing the bishops, etc., perhaps these small signs will translate into concrete changes.