Immigrant "sweep" nets over 2000 illegals

[irishgrl]

Officials arrest 2,000 in criminal immigrant sweep

HOUSTON (Reuters) - U.S. customs officials arrested more than 2,000 illegal immigrants, gang members and other fugitives in a nationwide sweep, the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customer Enforcement agency said on Wednesday.

The sweep, code named "Operation Return to Sender," has yielded arrests in 34 states since May 26 and comes as the U.S. Congress is debating several immigration measures, including proposals that would tighten border security and create a temporary worker program.

About half of the 2,179 people arrested in the operation had criminal records, and 367 were members or associates of violent street gangs, including the Mara Slavatrucha, or MS-13, Julie Myers, the assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for ICE told a press conference.

"America's welcome does not extend to immigrants who come here to commit crimes," Myers said.

Others arrested included 146 who had convictions for sexual offenses involving minors, and 640 were fugitive aliens who had been issued final orders of removal by an immigration judge and had not complied.

About 829 of those arrested on immigration violations have been deported to their home countries.

[carrie721]

The sweep, code named "Operation Return to Sender,"

lol ... seriously?

[Mari]

Officials arrest 2,000 in criminal immigrant sweep

HOUSTON (Reuters) - U.S. customs officials arrested more than 2,000 illegal immigrants, gang members and other fugitives in a nationwide sweep, the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customer Enforcement agency said on Wednesday.


Not commenting on the rest of the article, but just how this was written,
immigrants must be so happy to see themselves thrown in that lot, don't you think? Creates the idea all illegal immigrants are criminals.

[Brad]

Creates the idea all illegal immigrants are criminals.

Not to stir sh*t by any means, but how can you say that "illegal" immigrants are not "criminals" in the strictest (or loosest even) sense of the word? I mean, doesn't the fact that they're here "illegally" already mean they are "criminals"? I think I see what you mean as far as committing other crimes, but they're already criminals by being here illegally anyway, so...

Again, I'm really not trying to be an ass or anything by any means, but their existence here makes them criminals anyway.:shrug: Am I being unreasonable?

Brad

[Brwn_eyes0511]

lol ... seriously?

I almost spit my diet sunkist out at that one..

[HomerMcvie]

I almost spit my diet sunkist out at that one..
Why in the world do you drink diet, oh waif-ish one?:confused:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Why in the world do you drink diet, oh waif-ish one?:confused:

i like the taste of diet drinks better? :sorry:

[Mari]

Not to stir sh*t by any means, but how can you say that "illegal" immigrants are not "criminals" in the strictest (or loosest even) sense of the word? I mean, doesn't the fact that they're here "illegally" already mean they are "criminals"? I think I see what you mean as far as committing other crimes, but they're already criminals by being here illegally anyway, so...

Again, I'm really not trying to be an ass or anything by any means, but their existence here makes them criminals anyway.:shrug: Am I being unreasonable?

Brad

I see your point, but yeah, I think of other activities when someone uses the word 'criminal' to describe a person.
I just find it sad how people can be categorized as illegal or criminal based on something artificial like borders, paperwork, burocracy.. I guess I'm an idealist.

[irishgrl]

I see your point, but yeah, I think of other activities when someone uses the word 'criminal' to describe a person.
I just find it sad how people can be categorized as illegal or criminal based on something artificial like borders, paperwork, burocracy.. I guess I'm an idealist.


Borders were decided upon long ago and they arent nebulous shifting things like clouds :shrug:

as for criminality, the article makes it very clear just how prevelant criminality is--just within the 2000 (!) that was rounded up:
About half of the 2,179 people arrested in the operation had criminal records, and 367 were members or associates of violent street gangs, including the Mara Slavatrucha, or MS-13, Julie Myers, the assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for ICE told a press conference.

"America's welcome does not extend to immigrants who come here to commit crimes," Myers said.

Others arrested included 146 who had convictions for sexual offenses involving minors, and 640 were fugitive aliens who had been issued final orders of removal by an immigration judge and had not complied.

About 829 of those arrested on immigration violations have been deported to their home countries.

I wonder if the rest are being brought up on charges here? And Brad, I agree with you, the key word here is ILLEGAL immigrants.

With all due respect Mari, I think this is one area where being an idealist is frankly naive.

[Mari]

Borders were decided upon long ago and they arent nebulous shifting things like clouds :shrug:

as for criminality, the article makes it very clear just how prevelant criminality is--just within the 2000 (!) that was rounded up:

Then you didn't read my first post. I know what's referred to in this article, but it reads like a generalisation to me.
As for borders, they're an artificial concept. There is no actual naturally formed line on the ground where there is a border, only an idea created by some humans (the ones in power) at some point in history. Sometimes rather randomly, as well.


I wonder if the rest are being brought up on charges here? And Brad, I agree with you, the key word here is ILLEGAL immigrants.

With all due respect Mari, I think this is one area where being an idealist is frankly naive.

I disagree with that last word. Could say something similar about you if I wanted to. :shrug:
And I still refuse to associate 'illegal immigrants' with 'criminal'. They're often just the unlucky sods born on the wrong side of that border-thing.

[DrummerDeanna]

But this thing IS setting off a horrible trend of racial hate crime :distress:


From the Associated Press:

ROCKY POINT, N.Y. (AP) _ Two Mexican immigrants fishing off a
Long Island jetty were set upon by a group of four white youths who
beat them and stole their money while using racial and ethnic
slurs, police said.
The young men have been charged with robbery and assault as hate
crimes in connection with the Monday night attack, and were
arraigned Wednesday in a Suffolk County court.
Authorities identified the defendants as William Foley, 16;
Nicholas Provenzano, 19; Daniel Sturgis, 19, and Jesse Lee Ward,
18, all of Rocky Point.
Police said the two Mexican men, who were not identified, were
not seriously injured.
Attorney James D'Angelo, who represented Ward and Foley in
court, said all four youths had entered not guilty pleas.
``They are denying involvement in this,'' said D'Angelo.
Long Island has been the site of other anti-immigrant incidents.
In 2000, two Mexican men were beaten by two locals in Farmingville
who promised them work. On July 4, 2003, a Mexican family barely
escaped with their lives after teens set their Farmingville house
ablaze by shooting fireworks through a window.

(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
APNT-06-15-06 0919EDT<

[irishgrl]

Then you didn't read my first post. I know what's referred to in this article, but it reads like a generalisation to me.
As for borders, they're an artificial concept. There is no actual naturally formed line on the ground where there is a border, only an idea created by some humans (the ones in power) at some point in history. Sometimes rather randomly, as well.



I disagree with that last word. Could say something similar about you if I wanted to. :shrug:
And I still refuse to associate 'illegal immigrants' with 'criminal'. They're often just the unlucky sods born on the wrong side of that border-thing.

um, does the Rio Grande count as a natural border? As for being artificial, as long as the two entities on either side agree what the border IS, does it really matter that it is a man made concept? We all abide by man made concepts :shrug: If you have a fence on your property, you wouldnt want your neighbor making him/herself at home in your yard without your permission would you? Im not talking about a simple thing like getting an errant pet or paper, Im talking about setting up a patio set and BBQ in your yard and inviting all his/her friends for a party in your yard!! you can see how these "artificial" borders are actually important I hope :shrug:

And I dont see how you can disagree with the concept of ILLEGAL= CRIMINAL. ILLEGAL = CRIMINAL in any other societal aspect, why not this one?? :shrug: your refusal to acknowledge that fact is puzzling......

[cliffdweller]

And I still refuse to associate 'illegal immigrants' with 'criminal'. They're often just the unlucky sods born on the wrong side of that border-thing.

Right, and then those unlucky sods who are working construction across the alley from my house decide to come over and break into my house stealing most of the valuable things I and my family own and then get away with the whole thing 'cause guess what? They're illegal; they're not on the books. And yes, this did happen to me when I was 10 years old and I was in the house when it happened! :eek: Luckily they were only interested in property and not violence.

And yes, I know this is only one incident and shouldn't be attributed to a general population of people, but it's also an example of how illegal immigration can cause more problems than people might initially think. And while these people have a sorry lot in life being from a poor, 3rd world country, that doesn't automatically give them the right to come over to this country by any means necessary does it? I do feel for them, but fair is fair--what about all those other immigrants who went through all kinds of flaming hoops to get here legally?

[The Catdancer]

um, does the Rio Grande count as a natural border? As for being artificial, as long as the two entities on either side agree what the border IS, does it really matter that it is a man made concept? We all abide by man made concepts :shrug: If you have a fence on your property, you wouldnt want your neighbor making him/herself at home in your yard without your permission would you? Im not talking about a simple thing like getting an errant pet or paper, Im talking about setting up a patio set and BBQ in your yard and inviting all his/her friends for a party in your yard!! you can see how these "artificial" borders are actually important I hope :shrug:

And I dont see how you can disagree with the concept of ILLEGAL= CRIMINAL. ILLEGAL = CRIMINAL in any other societal aspect, why not this one?? :shrug: your refusal to acknowledge that fact is puzzling......

So let me see if I get this right... You say ILLEGAL = CRIMINAL. OK, so were all your ancestors criminals???? The Europeans that came over here way back when weren't all legal immigrants.
And how about the people that come here trying to make a better life for themselves but their lawyer is a piece of crap and f**** up the case?! They've committed all their life savings into coming here, paid the lawyer and all the other fees and have nothing left. They can't go home because they don't have any money and they have no home to go to. What are they supposed to do?

[irishgrl]

So let me see if I get this right... You say ILLEGAL = CRIMINAL. OK, so were all your ancestors criminals???? The Europeans that came over here way back when weren't all legal immigrants.
And how about the people that come here trying to make a better life for themselves but their lawyer is a piece of crap and f**** up the case?! They've committed all their life savings into coming here, paid the lawyer and all the other fees and have nothing left. They can't go home because they don't have any money and they have no home to go to. What are they supposed to do?

Im not sure what you are referring to?? are you talking about when this country was colonized or the influx of immigrants that came thru Ellis Island and various other ports? Either way, my ancestors came over LEGALLY, either as part of the original colonists (on my mom's side) or thru Ellis Island (on my Dad's side). I have my own personal feelings about the crimes that were committed against the Native Americans when Europeans came here, but that is a different topic. If you are by chance referring to the colonists who came over here to work off their criminal sentences from Europe, that was a form of indentured servitude and once they served their sentence, they were free/clear. In any event, that is not equivalent to immigrants coming here without proper documentation or permission and/or staying here past the expiration point (if any) which is in fact what the article is about and to which I most vigorously object.

As for your other "point," Im not sure why you equate the issue of immigrants being poorly represented in court with illegals coming and staying here. Thats like comparing apples and oranges. :shrug:

[carrie721]

I almost spit my diet sunkist out at that one..

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ruvlMGLapuE"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ruvlMGLapuE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[DrummerDeanna]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ruvlMGLapuE"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ruvlMGLapuE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


Ok -think we found anther song for the worst songs list!! :p

[carrie721]

Ok -think we found anther song for the worst songs list!! :p

haha! i know, so many elvis songs are soooo bad.

[DavidMn]

I wonder if Elvis' version of Return TO Sender was being played in the Patty Wagons as they rounded them up?:laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

haha! i know, so many elvis songs are soooo bad.

is it bad that i actually LIKE that song.. :o

[carrie721]

is it bad that i actually LIKE that song.. :o

not at all! there are many horrendous songs that i love. :wavey:

[Rickypt]

as for criminality, the article makes it very clear just how prevelant criminality is--just within the 2000 (!) that was rounded up

Yes, but the question is did they just happen to round up 2000 illegal immigrants and it turned out that a high percentage had criminal records. Or had they identified and were pursuing illegal immigrants with criminal records and/or in gangs and in the process arrested other illegal immigrants.

My sense is it is the latter, which is why the percentage is so high, making it seem like if you round up any group of 2000 illegal immigrants, you are going to find a sky high percentage of sex offenders, gang members, etc.

[DrummerDeanna]

Yes, but the question is did they just happen to round up 2000 illegal immigrants and it turned out that a high percentage had criminal records. Or had they identified and were pursuing illegal immigrants with criminal records and/or in gangs and in the process arrested other illegal immigrants.

My sense is it is the latter, which is why the percentage is so high, making it seem like if you round up any group of 2000 illegal immigrants, you are going to find a sky high percentage of sex offenders, gang members, etc.


Yeah - I would tend to agree with that. I think this sweep was more of a propaganda tool aimed at showing Americans that illegal immigrants are also criminals...the articles are totally framed that way and I think it's sad. :distress:

[amber]

I agree, but also on the other side, poor and less educated populations do tend to be more crime ridden, and illegal immigrant populations tend to be more poor and less well educated.

[irishgrl]

Yes, but the question is did they just happen to round up 2000 illegal immigrants and it turned out that a high percentage had criminal records. Or had they identified and were pursuing illegal immigrants with criminal records and/or in gangs and in the process arrested other illegal immigrants.

My sense is it is the latter, which is why the percentage is so high, making it seem like if you round up any group of 2000 illegal immigrants, you are going to find a sky high percentage of sex offenders, gang members, etc.

I didnt get that impression at all. I think if the goal was to go after illegals with criminal records, you'd see higher numbers. :shrug: this article had only about half of the deportees identified as criminals, which I think is probably consistent with a random sting operation...

remember, we are talking about law breakers in the first place so the fact that some of them also had criminal pasts doesnt surprise me.

[sparky]

2000 down, 10,998,000 to go.

[strandinthewind]

2000 down, 10,998,000 to go.

I hate to say it - but I agree. And - if they came here without a visa - they are illegal no matter what the fukc group they are put with - that pisses people off, but it is the truth :shrug:

[amber]

I hate to say it - but I agree. And - if they came here without a visa - they are illegal no matter what the fukc group they are put with - that pisses people off, but it is the truth :shrug:

This issue is hard for me, it's really straining my super liberal membership. But i have found a way to reconcile.
There should be rules, but they absolutely should not be made by the people who are making them now.
Bad law is trying to be enacted. Good societies don't function on bad law.
Apparently we are operating on a "let 'em in, then arrest them!" plan.
I swear, there is a way to handle immigration that doesn't drive people to these extremes. My whole problem is that this is not an all or nothing argument, the way it has been here.
I don't love immigration. But I couldn't bring myself to enforce all the rules currently in place.
The whole system is f*cked up, which is neither the fault of the immigrants or the Americans.
Let me reiterate, I am only "against" immigration because of the siphoning of natural resources that America still has. But that goes for anyone who has too many kids. America is one of few countries who have environmental laws (weak though they are) and I absolutely do not want those to be eschewed because of demand. Especially since America's demand is the most of the whole world. We consume immense amounts of resources, and so when immigrants come they consume the same resources. Which are probably 5 fold at least what they would have consumed in their own country. We're like the capitalist needless consumer hellpit that will eventually render the whole earth unpopulable.

I don't approve of the damand that ignorant human populations make on world resources. And that doesn't necessarily mean immigrants.
Hello, people, it's called birth control, and if your faith says that is wrong, either way you should only have as many kids as you and your environment can support. Hey, you don't have food for your family. You think that's a hint?! The hint is, maybe keep it under two or three, and you could provide for your family.
Again, not just an opinion for immigrants, although from Mexico they tend to be more Catholic/anti birth control. But as far as I'm concerned, they could be anyone - if they're populating that fast, I'm still against it. Heck, mormons piss me off for the same reason! :laugh:
It's called science, it's called human advancement, people - embrace it, it will make all our lives better, not to mention the health of the planet.

It's not a right to keep a child, it's work, and availability of resources.
Every other species on the planet is forced to live by this rule.
And since we have the means of birth control, with our big ol' brains, we should use it.
God, at this point animals are smarter than us. We have the tech, but remain in the dark, though the evidence is available. It's pretty sickening.

[Rickypt]

There have been some nice positive stories in SF Chronicle lately about the undocumented, providing some needed balance.

I never wrapped up the converation on the other thread. After my research, I admit that the cost of providing services to undocumented is higher than I thought. However, it (appears to be around $10 billion) is a rather small amount compared to our overall budget. I'm much more concerned about what we are spending on an immoral war.

I support amnesty for the current undocumented population. They are already here and I think it is next to impossible to think they can all be rounded up and sent home. Plus they have roots here and many with children who are in school and I support integrating them into our society. If they have a criminal record, then send them home.

At the same time, I support reform that strengthens efforts to slow future illegal immigration. Not dumb ideas like building a fence, but targeting businesses that hire/exploit immigrants, tougher enforcement of providing residency/citizenship when applying for things like public services, etc.

What disturbs me the most is that this has become such a defining issue for the 2006 election, proven by the outcome of the race to succeed Duke Cunningham. I believe the energy around illegal immigration this year started as a GOP ploy to take attention off the issues that should be key in this election. That doesn't mean I think people who oppose illegal immigration are part of that ploy, but there is definitely a reason it has reached such a crescendo this year.

It is just way low on my list of problems in this country and it will be a shame if the outcome of elections hinges on it, in my opinion. And that's pretty much all I have left to say on the issue. This is one where people have entrenched positions and there isn't much room for swaying.

[Rickypt]

I didnt get that impression at all. I think if the goal was to go after illegals with criminal records, you'd see higher numbers. :shrug:

Well, it was indeed how I saw it. They were targeting known criminals. Just type "immigration sting" into Google news and read the articles. In San Diego, they rounded people suspected of being illegal immigrants as part of the sweep, but they weren't the main target.

So, obviously it worked to create the impression that if you take a group of 2000 illegal immigrants, that you're going to get a huge percentage of people who have created serious crimes like child molestation.

Here's a sample of what I found on Google.

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16792558&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6

The sting targeted individuals who had criminal records, including 146 with convictions for sexual offenses involving minors and 367 members of violent street gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13. About 640 of those arrested had been deported before and had returned to the country, according to a statement released by the agency.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the operation is part of a new get-tough strategy that is cracking down on the criminals who "perpetuate illegal immigration."

"The fugitives captured in this operation threatened public safety in hundreds of neighborhoods and communities around the country," he said. "This department has no tolerance for their criminal behavior and we are using every authority at our disposal to bring focus to fugitive operations and rid communities of this criminality."

[strandinthewind]

With all due respect, shouldn't these criminals (over and above the illegal/criminal status) be the very ones to go after first?

In the end, there is a system for coming into this country to work and trying to be a citizen. It is relatively easy and clearly if you know enough to evade the authorities by being an illegal, you know enough about how to be legal. So, I say all should have to follow that system.

I mean it scares me that our borders are not secure and that some terrorist who could not get into America through American Customs can just walk across the Rio Grande.

[DrummerDeanna]

I mean it scares me that our borders are not secure and that some terrorist who could not get into America through American Customs can just walk across the Rio Grande.


Although that hasn't happened and the worst terrorists thus far have come through Canada!!

And it's not an easy process to come to America if you are from a poor farm in Mexico and your family is starving. It's only easy to come here if you have a lot of money.

Edit: It not being easy to come here is not my way of making an excuse - they're still illegal - I'm just sayin.

[Rickypt]

In the end, there is a system for coming into this country to work and trying to be a citizen. It is relatively easy

It is?

When my partner came to live here with me, there wasn't a single way he could do so except possibly to pay a ton of money and go to school. And he was French, I can't imagine it's that easy for people from Mexico to come here if they want to.

Maybe the immigration laws have changed, though.

[strandinthewind]

To become a citizen, these are the general Requirements:

All naturalization applicants must demonstrate good moral character.

The other naturalization requirements may be modified or waived for certain applicants, such as spouses of U.S. Citizens.

A period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States
An ability to read, write and speak English
Good moral character
Knowledge of the principles of the U.S. Constitution
Favorable disposition toward the United States

Certainly, it is a process. I am just noting that the lengths people go to be illegal aliens - fake ID's, nomadic lifestyle, etc., is indicative that that effort could be put into obtaining a Visa or getting your citizenship.

Here one of many sites that goes into the process.

http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/immigrant_visas/9imm_process.htm#eligible

[strandinthewind]

Although that hasn't happened and the worst terrorists thus far have come through Canada!! . . .

I hear ya - but just because they have not (though much of the drug trade does and that is a form of terrorism) - does not mean they won't. So, I say an ounce of prevention . . . .

And, mind you, if, like the gun laws, the idiots in charge over the last several decades would enforce the current laws, this would not be that large of an issue.

[irishgrl]

Well, it was indeed how I saw it. They were targeting known criminals. Just type "immigration sting" into Google news and read the articles. In San Diego, they rounded people suspected of being illegal immigrants as part of the sweep, but they weren't the main target.

So, obviously it worked to create the impression that if you take a group of 2000 illegal immigrants, that you're going to get a huge percentage of people who have created serious crimes like child molestation.

Here's a sample of what I found on Google.

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16792558&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6

The sting targeted individuals who had criminal records, including 146 with convictions for sexual offenses involving minors and 367 members of violent street gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13. About 640 of those arrested had been deported before and had returned to the country, according to a statement released by the agency.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the operation is part of a new get-tough strategy that is cracking down on the criminals who "perpetuate illegal immigration."

"The fugitives captured in this operation threatened public safety in hundreds of neighborhoods and communities around the country," he said. "This department has no tolerance for their criminal behavior and we are using every authority at our disposal to bring focus to fugitive operations and rid communities of this criminality."

I think you are already skewing your results if you use a search term like immigration STING. I will do my own search with a different (more generic) search criteria, and lets see what I get.....

edit: I used as my search term "operation Return to Sender" and apparently the focus was on getting illegals who had criminal records. here is an excerpt from an AP article:

The crackdown is called Operation Return to Sender.

"This sends a message," said Monico, standing outside the gray Victorian apartment where Da Silva had been hiding. "When we deport you, we're serious."

An Associated Press reporter and photographer accompanied a fugitive task force as it made Operation Return to Sender raids Tuesday night and early Wednesday.

The operation has caught more than 140 immigrants with convictions for sexual offenses against children; 367 known gang members, including street soldiers in the deadly Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13; and about 640 people who had already been deported once, immigration officials said. The numbers include more than 720 arrests in California alone.

More than 800 people arrested already have been deported.

"This is a massive operation," said Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for immigration enforcement or ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. "We are watching the country's borders from the inside."

The government has conducted similar large-scale immigration sweeps from time to time. On April 20, agents rounded up 1,100 illegal immigrants in 40 cities.

In New England, officials said the Operation Return to Sender sweeps have caught more than 150 people, including 75 who had come back after being deported.

ICE has a network of 35 fugitive teams across the country. The 2006 budget increased that number to 52, and the Bush administration is pushing for 70 by 2007.

The challenge, agents said, is staggering.

There are more than 500,000 "fugitive aliens" who have been deported by judges and either slipped back into the country or never left. There is often a disconnect between local and state prisons and the federal government that allows illegal immigrants to serve time and be released without being transferred to federal officials for deportation.

The work that led to the series of arrests over the past 20 days began last winter. Agents in Boston, for example, began scouting targets four months ago, conducting street surveillance and following up leads from confidential informants.

"It's a lot of preparation, and it's a lot of patience," said Jim Martin, deputy director for ICE's New England field office. "All for a couple minutes of adrenaline."

During the raid late Tuesday, the federal squad, which includes a Boston police sergeant detective, wore bulging bulletproof vests and stiff Kevlar gloves to protect their hands from needles, knives and rusty fences.

Badges dangled on chains around their necks as they passed around wanted posters and shined flashlights on the face of a 24-year-old Latvian man who had served prison time for assaulting a police officer.

The team moved in the dark, climbing fences and hiding behind parked cars to encircle a three-story house in Boston's Allston-Brighton neighborhood. All at once they emerged from the shadows. A half-dozen agents filled the front porch, their knocks on the door echoing down the block. The target had moved, the agents learned, and a team split off and caught him in Weymouth, about 15 miles south of the city.

Another man caught in the recent blitz was a Salvadoran gang member who was convicted in a stabbing that left a 13-year-old boy paralyzed. Agents caught him working at Budget Rental Car at Boston's Logan Airport.

"The problems with immigration aren't going to be solved overnight," Raimondi said as the team sped toward another raid. "You start chipping away at it ... The more teams we get up and running, the more dangerous people we are going to get off the streets."

Ya know, I just cant feel sorry for these people. they need to be GONE. they are killers/rapists/molesters/drug dealers/gang members. to wit:
Some of those arrested in Operation Return to Sender included:

Franklin Ademir Rodriguez, a 25-year-old Salvadoran national and member of the street gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). Rodriguez, also known as “Hollywood,” boasts a lengthy criminal history that includes an assault and battery conviction for helping other MS-13 gang members permanently paralyze a 13-year-old boy by stabbing him in the spine with a sharpened stake. The victim is now confined to a wheelchair for life.

Jose Garcia Rios, a Mexican national whose criminal history extends from 1985 to present. Garcia has been arrested roughly 13 times, has been removed from the country several times, and has past convictions for crimes ranging from aggravated robbery to drug dealing, drug possession, terroristic threats, and evading arrest.

Wilber Kuk, a 24-year-old Mexican national and member of 18th Street gang in Washington, D.C. who has convictions for abduction, malicious wounding, robbery and use of a firearm.

Samuel Gil Martinez, a 24-year-old Salvadoran national and member of the MS-13 gang. Martinez has twice been convicted in Boston of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In one case, he beat an individual with a baseball bat. In another, he attacked an individual at a bus stop with a “Club” automobile lock. Martinez was arrested with other MS-13 members during the commission of these crimes.

Angel Lira-Alvarez, a 26-year-old Mexican national and member of “East Side Homeboys,” a major street gang in Dallas, Texas. Lira has previous convictions for manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance, theft and burglary. He had previously been deported from the country, but re-entered the United States and was arrested again for marijuana possession. He was the subject of a local arrest warrant for parole violations when ICE arrested him.

Those arrested in the operation came from nations around the globe, including Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

The arrests are the latest enforcement actions under the interior immigration enforcement strategy that was announced on April 20, 2006 by Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and Assistant Secretary Myers. A critical element of this interior enforcement strategy is to identify and remove criminal aliens, fugitives, and other immigration violators from the United States, officials said.

The interior enforcement strategy is part of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), which is the Department of Homeland Security’s multi-year plan to secure America’s borders and reduce illegal migration. SBI’s border security efforts are focused on gaining operational control of the nation’s borders through additional personnel and technology, while re-engineering the detention and removal system to ensure that illegal aliens are removed from the country quickly.


as far as I am concerned, this operation was a job well done, and lets hope they do many more of these sweeps.

[Rickypt]

To become a citizen, these are the general Requirements:

All naturalization applicants must demonstrate good moral character.

The other naturalization requirements may be modified or waived for certain applicants, such as spouses of U.S. Citizens.

A period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States
An ability to read, write and speak English
Good moral character
Knowledge of the principles of the U.S. Constitution
Favorable disposition toward the United States

Certainly, it is a process. I am just noting that the lengths people go to be illegal aliens - fake ID's, nomadic lifestyle, etc., is indicative that that effort could be put into obtaining a Visa or getting your citizenship.

Here one of many sites that goes into the process.

http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/immigrant_visas/9imm_process.htm#eligible

Strand, that is the process for a legal immigrant to become a U.S. citizen.

The process to be allowed into the country as a legal immigrant is extremely complex and limited. In fact, they have had a "lottery" every year for a number of years with something like 40,000 slots and millions apply.

I am well familiar with it, I spent quite a sum of money hiring lawyers to help my first partner get legal status here and it never happened after seven years. And he was (1) French, (2) spoke perfect English, (3) employable.

I agree 100% that legal immigration is the way to go, but I think laws need to change dramatically to make sure that people who want to come here and seek a better life for their families have a good shot at it. I'm liberal on immigration and would support raising the "quotas" that currently exist while cracking down more on future illegal immigration.

[Rickypt]

Ya know, I just cant feel sorry for these people. they need to be GONE. they are killers/rapists/molesters/drug dealers/gang members.

I don't feel sorry for the killers/rapists/drug dealers/gang members either. Those with criminal records need to go.



as far as I am concerned, this operation was a job well done

I know you feel that way, and that's fine. I was just trying to correct the record. And, Irishgrl, when I did the search I found over 100 articles with the same info as the article I posted. Including articles in NY and LA Times. If I thought I had found info based on a skewed query, I wouldn't have posted.:)

[becca]

I became friends with some Latino people while living in Seattle and in Alaska (in fact the canneries up there have become dependent on labor brought in, mainly Mexican). I also became friends with some former New Jerseyites who informed me about U.S. citizens tax dollars going to build hiring centers for illegal under the counter labor to get it off the streets. This is such a complex sitaution really, but I feel the main problem is that business is able to hire non-citizens so easily with no responsibilites or penalties and in fact many benefits (like not having to provide benefits). They argue how Americans don't want to do many of these jobs, well, sure... now that they pay so badly with no benefits! You cannot expect of citizens to compete with non-citizens, that is just wrong, and companies have so often been held as being above a nationality except when it comes to paying for political seats and votes. Reagan began decimating many anti-trust and other business laws that had made the U.S. what it was. Reagan Jr. (and I respected Bush Sr. but his son is another manipulable puppet like The Gipper), well he is just finishing off I guess what reagan started. Union busting, citizenship undermining, allowing market access with almost no conditions of benefits to citizens... it's just a mess, and particularily galling I would think when your own tax money is being used against you whether to help subsidise a sports arena with a corporate name on it or a hiring center for illegal labor.

The people are caught in the crossfire. The U.S. owes the Tejanos and the Mexican people as far as I'm concerned something, but they are being as abused as the tax paying U.S. citizen is. But it's a case of divide and conquer; turning ordinary working people against each other and nobody seems to hold elected representatives, orf business law, accountable... except to punish and harrass the poor migrants. The Mexican government has things to answer for in this, and their own immigration laws are very restrictive and full of stiff penalties. Building a long wall when Pat Buchanen first made it a presidential campaign platform a dozen or so years ago sounded ludicrous then, i wish it would sound as ludicrous to people now, but instead Bush Jr. is sending more muscle as if that will solve things and not just escalate a situation to a new level.

[Rickypt]

I became friends with some Latino people while living in Seattle and in Alaska (in fact the canneries up there have become dependent on labor brought in, mainly Mexican). I also became friends with some former New Jerseyites who informed me about U.S. citizens tax dollars going to build hiring centers for illegal under the counter labor to get it off the streets. This is such a complex sitaution really, but I feel the main problem is that business is able to hire non-citizens so easily with no responsibilites or penalties and in fact many benefits (like not having to provide benefits). They argue how Americans don't want to do many of these jobs, well, sure... now that they pay so badly with no benefits! You cannot expect of citizens to compete with non-citizens, that is just wrong, and companies have so often been held as being above a nationality except when it comes to paying for political seats and votes. Reagan began decimating many anti-trust and other business laws that had made the U.S. what it was. Reagan Jr. (and I respected Bush Sr. but his son is another manipulable puppet like The Gipper), well he is just finishing off I guess what reagan started. Union busting, citizenship undermining, allowing market access with almost no conditions of benefits to citizens... it's just a mess, and particularily galling I would think when your own tax money is being used against you whether to help subsidise a sports arena with a corporate name on it or a hiring center for illegal labor.

The people are caught in the crossfire. The U.S. owes the Tejanos and the Mexican people as far as I'm concerned something, but they are being as abused as the tax paying U.S. citizen is. But it's a case of divide and conquer; turning ordinary working people against each other and nobody seems to hold elected representatives, orf business law, accountable... except to punish and harrass the poor migrants. The Mexican government has things to answer for in this, and their own immigration laws are very restrictive and full of stiff penalties. Building a long wall when Pat Buchanen first made it a presidential campaign platform a dozen or so years ago sounded ludicrous then, i wish it would sound as ludicrous to people now, but instead Bush Jr. is sending more muscle as if that will solve things and not just escalate a situation to a new level.

This is an AWESOME post.

[becca]

P.S.

Not to pick on Lou Dobbs or John Stossel too harshly, but be wary of any hyper-emotional crisis the media gets ahold of and the simplistic demands they forward as remedies. If you feel you are being pushed or led down a narrow path you probably are. Keep your options open as both a voter and in voicing an opinion... erring on the side of dealing with fellow humans as equal at least in so far as they are worthy of breathing the same air (at least until someone can copyright and brand an air molecule).

In Alaska I saw many Norweigan flags and Italian flags. If they can show those with pride so can Mexican-Americans and Mexicans now living in the U.S., and I don't see how those flags are meant to be offensive like say a confederate flag on a state capital building would be.

[strandinthewind]

Strand, that is the process for a legal immigrant to become a U.S. citizen.

The process to be allowed into the country as a legal immigrant is extremely complex and limited. In fact, they have had a "lottery" every year for a number of years with something like 40,000 slots and millions apply.

I am well familiar with it, I spent quite a sum of money hiring lawyers to help my first partner get legal status here and it never happened after seven years. And he was (1) French, (2) spoke perfect English, (3) employable.

I agree 100% that legal immigration is the way to go, but I think laws need to change dramatically to make sure that people who want to come here and seek a better life for their families have a good shot at it. I'm liberal on immigration and would support raising the "quotas" that currently exist while cracking down more on future illegal immigration.

I know - but my point is that I see illegals all the time and they go to great lengths and spend money to remain undercover. That effort and money could be used to be or become legal.

Again, I am not saying it is the easiest thing in the world - I am just saying the effort might be a little more, but it is the only way to go, etc.

[irishgrl]

I don't feel sorry for the killers/rapists/drug dealers/gang members either. Those with criminal records need to go.



I know you feel that way, and that's fine. I was just trying to correct the record. And, Irishgrl, when I did the search I found over 100 articles with the same info as the article I posted. Including articles in NY and LA Times. If I thought I had found info based on a skewed query, I wouldn't have posted.:)

if you use a term like immigration STING, I think you're going to get a skewed result. however, I acknowledge that this latest roundup was geared toward the illegals that DID have criminal records and I stand corrected on that point. it doesnt change the fact that these people still need to be ousted however. (which I see you agree with) no harm, no foul as far as Im concerned...

as for the policies of Reagan, and Bush Sr (not to mention Monkey Boy), anyone who knows me knows that I LOATHED Reagan, and his policies. On the other hand, Im not sure what we as Americans "owe" the Mexicans :shrug:
The corporate ASSWIPES who only care about the almighty dollar and profit margin should be held acountable by ALL means. The idea of mollycoddling big business just grates against my nerves!! I say, do away with outsourcing, do away with turning a blind eye to under the table hiring/benefits practices, make these jerkwads accountable!!

[becca]

Im not sure what we as Americans "owe" the Mexicans

Well, the way states like Texas and California became part of the U.S. was not without extreme acts of racially motivated violence, even if Santa Ana was a complete asswipe. Many Tejanos who fought with people wanting to make Texas a state were screwed badly later on and had land taken from them illegally, just as natives did through broken re-written and deceitful treaties as well as gunfire. Mexico would be a different place today economically and geographically if they had not been through the Mexican-American war. Americans continue to profit from what their ancestors did and so I feel continue to owe descendants of natives, black slaves and others. Canada owes so much of it's wealth and prosperity to natives and it's pretty sad when people don't respect them or to see them as people with alchohol problems and rusting cars. It used to be illegal here to sell liquor to natives because of their genetic propensity to have a problem with it, but now there are more liquor stores than ever thanks to liberalizing and going more free-market. We have a responsibility there that we have given up, but i guess natives gave us cigarettes so in that way we're equal.

Canada has apologized formally to Japanese Canadians interned in camps simply because of race, to Chinese Canadians for the head tax we imposed to limit immigration to here and is contemplating an apology to the Sikh community for a shipload of Sikh's turned back way back in 1915 (although they left5 because they were fighting the British at the time so I would say it makes sense British Columbia would not have them). Wouldn't it be nice to have apologies from Japan for atrocities of the pacific war, like those bomb balloons they sent across the pacific which killed a family in oregon on a picnic? It would be the decent thing to do, although these things are probably only done to get some segment of the vote. And so an official apology to Mexico by the U.S. might even be possibly warranted rather than a bigger wall, but I know that's not going to happen anymore than apologies for arming Ho Chi Minh and Bin Laden initially.

[DrummerDeanna]

Well, the way states like Texas and California became part of the U.S. was not without extreme acts of racially motivated violence, even if Santa Ana was a complete asswipe. Many Tejanos who fought with people wanting to make Texas a state were screwed badly later on and had land taken from them illegally, just as natives did through broken re-written and deceitful treaties as well as gunfire. Mexico would be a different place today economically and geographically if they had not been through the Mexican-American war. Americans continue to profit from what their ancestors did and so I feel continue to owe descendants of natives, black slaves and others. Canada owes so much of it's wealth and prosperity to natives and it's pretty sad when people don't respect them or to see them as people with alchohol problems and rusting cars. It used to be illegal here to sell liquor to natives because of their genetic propensity to have a problem with it, but now there are more liquor stores than ever thanks to liberalizing and going more free-market. We have a responsibility there that we have given up, but i guess natives gave us cigarettes so in that way we're equal.



Thanks for that!! I was about to post a little about this country's history with Mexico. And the fact that basically Texas and California were stolen from Mexico...and that basically this country has and STILL has a lot of contempt for Mexicans. Not as bad as for Native Americans...but still. Mexican may as well be a dirty word and that's just sad.

I know there are more illegal Mexicans here than any other group - BUT where the hell is talk of getting rid of all of the illegal Chinese, Indian and whatever else immigrants? They are out there and their numbers are nothing to sneeze at I'm sure.

Just recently some news channel profiled an illegal immigrant couple who was here from Ireland...but no uproar over that one?? :shrug:

[becca]

Just recently some news channel profiled an illegal immigrant couple who was here from Ireland...but no uproar over that one??

The Catholic Irish were the plague that was going to sweep over and ruin the U.S. back about 125 years ago. There were exagerrated charactures in most majot newspapers and Irish people were depicted as corrupt policement, incompetent, shifty, cunning, ignorant, not able to speak English, lazy, of crude features, ate weird smelling foods, and on and on. There were a few vestiges of the prejudice still around when Kennedy ran for president. Now Irish music is very popular and the prejudice seems to have been long extinct in America.

[irishgrl]

Mexico would be a different place today economically and geographically if they had not been through the Mexican-American war.

Im not sure what your point is, America was a fledgling country at that point and WE survived :shrug:

As a Californian, I am well aware of how this State was populated etc....but here is a nearly contemporary view of the events of Texas/Californian annexation.


The Mexican War
by David Saville Muzzey, Ph.D.
Barnard College, Columbia University, New York
Mexico refuses to recognize the Annexation of Texas.

The annexation of Texas was a perfectly fair transaction. For nine years, since the victory of San Jacinto in 1836, Texas had been an independent republic, whose reconquest Mexico had not the slightest chance of effecting. President James L. PolkIn fact, at the very moment of annexation, the Mexican government, at the suggestion of England, had agreed to recognize the independence of Texas, on condition that the republic should not join itself to the United States. We were not taking Mexican territory, then, in annexing Texas. The new state had come into the Union claiming the Rio Grande as her southern and western boundary. By the terms of annexation all boundary disputes with Mexico were referred by Texas to the government of the United States. President Polk sent John Slidell of Louisiana to Mexico in the autumn of 1845 to adjust any differences over the Texan claims. But though Slidell labored for months to get a hearing, two successive presidents of revolution-torn Mexico refused to recognize him, and he was dismissed from the country in August, 1846.

Taylor attacked on the Rio Grande.

The massing of Mexican troops on the southern bank of the Rio Grande, coupled with the refusal of the Mexican government to receive Slidell, led President Polk to order General Zachary Taylor to move to the borders. Taylor marched to the Rio Grande and fortified a position on the northern bank. The Mexican and the American troops were thus facing each other across the river. When Taylor refused to retreat to the Nueces, the Mexican commander crossed the Rio Grande, ambushed a scouting force of 63 Americans, and killed or wounded 16 of them (April 24, 1846).

The United States accepts War with Mexico.

When the news of the attack reached Washington early in May, Polk sent a special message to Congress, concluding with these words:

"We have tried every effort at reconciliation...But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States [the Rio Grande], has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are at war. As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country."

The House and Senate, by very large majorities (174 to 14, and 40 to 2), voted 50,000 men and $10,000,000 for the prosecution of the war.

Taylor invades Mexico.

Photograph of Zachary TaylorMeanwhile, General Taylor had driven the Mexicans back to the south bank of the Rio Grande in the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. Six days after the vote of Congress sanctioning the war, he crossed the Rio Grande and occupied the Mexican frontier town of Matamoros, whence he proceeded during the summer and autumn of 1846 to capture the capitals of three of the Mexican provinces.

The Occupation of California and New Mexico.

As soon as hostilities began, Commodore Sloat, in command of our squadron in the Pacific, was ordered to seize California, and General [Stephen Watts] Kearny was sent to invade New Mexico. The occupation of California was practically undisputed. Mexico had only the faintest shadow of authority in the province, and the 6000 white inhabitants made no objection to seeing the flag of the United States raised over their forts. Kearny started with 1800 men from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in June, and on the eighteenth of August defeated the force of 4000 Mexicans and Indians which disputed his occupation of Santa Fé. After garrisoning this important post he detached Colonel Doliphan with 850 men to march through the northern provinces of Mexico and effect a juncture with General Taylor at Monterey, while he himself with only 100 men continued his long journey of 1500 miles to San Diego, California, where he joined Sloat's successor, Stockton.

Taylor's Victory at Buena Vista.

After these decided victories and uninterrupted marches of Taylor, Kearny, Sloat, Stockton, and Doniphan, the Mexican government was offered a fair chance to treat for peace, which it refused. Then President Polk decided, with the unanimous consent of his cabinet, to strike at the heart of Mexico. Photo of Gen. Winfield ScottGeneral Winfield Scott, a hero of the War of 1812, was put in command of an army of about 12,000 men, to land at Vera Cruz and fight his way up the mountains to the capital city of Mexico. Santa Anna, who, by the rapid shift of revolutions, was again dictator in Mexico, heard of this plan to attack the capital and hastened north with 20,000 troops to surprise and destroy Taylor's army before Scott should have time to take Vera Cruz. But Taylor, with an army one-fourth the size of Santa Anna's, drove the Mexicans back in the hotly contested battle of Buena Vista (February 23, 1847), securing the Californian and New Mexican conquests. Santa Anna hastened southward to the defense of the city of Mexico.

Scott take the city of Mexico.

Scott took Vera Cruz in March and worked his way slowly but surely, against forces always superior to his own, up to the very gates of Mexico (August, 1847). Here he paused, by the President's orders, to allow the Mexicans another chance to accept the terms of peace which the United States offered,-the cession by Mexico of New Mexico and California in return for a large payment of money. The Mexican commissioners, however, insisted on having both banks of the Rio Grande and all of California up to the neighborhood of San Francisco, besides receiving damages for injuries inflicted by the American troops in their invasions. These claims were preposterous, coming from a conquered country, and there was nothing left for Scott to do but to resume military operations. Santa Anna defended the capital with a force of 30,000 men, but the Mexicans were no match for the American soldiers. Scott stormed the fortified hill of Chapultepec and advanced to the gates of the city. On the thirteenth of September his troops entered the Mexican capital and raised the Stars and Strips over "the palace of the Montezumas."

Polk's Efforts to secure Peace.

Lithograph of Gen. SantannaFrom the beginning of the war Polk had been negotiating for peace. He had kept Slidell in Mexico long after the opening of hostilities and had sent Nicholas Trist as special peace commissioner to join Scott's army at Vera Cruz and to offer Mexico terms of peace at the earliest possible moment. He had allowed Santa Anna to return to Mexico from his exile in Cuba in the summer of 1846, because the wily and treacherous dictator held out false promises of effecting a reconciliation between Mexico and the United States. He had asked Congress for an appropriation of $2,000,000 for peace negotiations when General Taylor was still near the Rio Grande, ten days before General Kearny had taken Santa Fé and the province of New Mexico, and before General Scott's campaign had been thought of.

The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

When the Mexican commissioners made advances for peace at the beginning of the year 1848, they were given terms almost as liberal as those offered them before Scott had stormed and occupied their capital. By the treaty concluded at Guadalupe-Hidalgo, February 2, 1848, Mexico was required to cede California and New Mexico to the United States and to recognize the Rio Grande as the southern and western boundary of Texas. In return, the United States paid Mexico $15,000,000 cash and assumed some $3,250,000 more in claims of American citizens on the Mexican government. Considering the facts that California was scarcely under Mexican control at all and might have been taken at any moment by Great Britain, France, or Russia; that New Mexico was still the almost undisturbed home of Indian tribes; that the land from the Nueces to the Rio Grande was almost a desert; and that the American troops were in possession of the Mexican capital, the terms offered Mexico were very generous. Polk was urged by many to annex the whole country of Mexico to the United States, but he refused to consider such a proposal.

The Justice of the Mexican War.

The Mexican War has generally been condemned by American historians as "the foulest blot on our national honor," a war forced upon Mexico by slaveholders greedy for new territory, a perfect illustration of La Fontaine's fable of the wolf picking a quarrel with the lamb solely for an excuse to devour him. But Mexico had insulted our flag, plundered our commerce, imprisoned our citizens, lied to our representatives, and spurned our envoys. As early as 1837 President Jackson said that Mexico's offenses "would justify in the eyes of all nations immediate war." To be sure we were a strong nation and Mexico a weak one. But weakness should not give immunity to continued and open insolence. We had a right to annex Texas after that republic had maintained its independence for nine years; yet Mexico made annexation a cause of war. We were willing to discuss the boundaries of Texas with Mexico; but our accredited envoy was rejected by two successive Mexican presidents, who were afraid to oppose the war spirit of their country. We even refrained from taking Texas into the Union until Great Britain had interfered so far as to persuade Mexico to recognize the independence of Texas if she would refuse to join the United States.

The Moral Aspect of the Annexation of Texas.

If there was anything disgraceful in the expansionist program of the decade 1840-1850, it was not the Mexican War, but the annexation of Texas. The position of the abolitionists on this question was clear and logical. They condemned the annexation of Texas as a wicked extension of the slavery area, notwithstanding all arguments about "fulfilling our manifest destiny" or "attaining our natural boundaries." To annex Texas might be legally right, they said, but it was morally wrong. James Russell Lowell, in his magnificent poem "The Present Crisis" (1844), warned the annexationists that "They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin." We certainly assumed a great moral responsibility when we annexed Texas. However, it was not to Mexico that we were answerable, but to the enlightened conscience of the nation.

Completion of the Program of Expansion.

With our acquisition of the Oregon territory to the forty-ninth parallel by the treaty of 1846 with Great Britain, and the cession of California and New Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848, the boundaries of the United States reached practically their present limits. The work of westward extension was done. Expansion, the watchword of the decade 1840-1850, was dropped from our vocabulary for fifty years, and the immense energies of the nation were directed toward finding a plan on which the new territory could be organized in harmony with the conflicting interests of the free and slave sections of our country. IN: An American History, by David Saville Muzzey.
Boston : Ginn Company, 1911

**************
another article:


Mexico, WAR WITH. The annexation of Texas caused an immediate rupture between the United States and Mexico, for the latter claimed Texas as a part of her territory, notwithstanding its independence had been acknowledged by the United States, England, France, and other governments.

Here's a little known fact about the antics of the Mexican Government:

At the same time there existed another cause for serious dispute between the United States and Mexico. The latter had been an unjust and injurious neighbor ever since the establishment of republican government in Mexico in 1824. Impoverished by civil war, it did not hesitate to replenish its treasury by plundering American vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, or by confiscating the property of American merchants within its borders.

The United States government remonstrated in vain until 1831, when a treaty was made and promises of redress were given. These promises were never fulfilled. Robberies continued; and, in 1840, the aggregate value of property belonging to Americans which had been appropriated by the Mexicans amounted to more than $6,000,000. The claim for this amount was unsatisfied when the annexation of Texas took place in 1845.


Being fully aware of the hostile feelings of the Mexicans, President Polk ordered (July, 1845) General Zachary Taylor, then in command of the United States troops in the Southwest, to go to Texas and take a position as near the Rio Grande as prudence would allow. This force, about 1,500 strong, was called the Army of Occupation for the defense of Texas. At the same time a strong naval force, under Commodore Conner, sailed to the Gulf of Mexico to protect American interests there. In September Taylor formed a camp at Corpus Christi, and there remained during the autumn and winter. He was ordered, Jan. 13, 1846, to move from his camp at Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, opposite the Spanish city of Matamoras, because Mexican troops were gathering in that direction. This was disputed territory between Texas and the neighboring province of Tamaulipas. When he encamped at Point Isabel, March 25, on the coast, 28 miles from Matamoras, Taylor was warned by the Mexicans that he was upon foreign soil. He left his stores at Point Isabel, under a guard of 450 men, and with the remainder of his army advanced to the bank of the Rio Grande, where he established a camp and began the erection of a fort, which he named Fort Brown, in honor of Major Brown, in command there.

The Mexicans were so eager for war that they elected General Paredes to succeed President Herrera because he was overly anxious for peace with the United States. The latter sent General Ampudia, with a large force, to drive the Americans beyond the Nueces. This officer demanded of General Taylor, April 12, the withdrawal of his troops within twenty-four hours. Taylor refused, and continued to strengthen Fort Brown. Ampudia hesitated, when General Arista was put in his place as commander-in-chief of the Northern Division of the Army of Mexico. He was strongly reinforced, and the position of the Army of Occupation became critical. Parties of armed Mexicans soon got between Point Isabel and Fort Brown and cut off all intercommunication. A reconnoitering party under Captain Thornton was surprised and captured (April 24) on the Texas side of the Rio Grande, when Lieutenant Mason was killed. Having completed his fort, Taylor hastened to the relief of Point Isabel, May 1, which was menaced by a Mexican force, 1,500 strong, collected in the rear. He reached Point Isabel the same day. This departure of Taylor from the Rio Grande emboldened the Mexicans, who opened fire upon Fort Brown, May 3, from Matamoras, and a large body crossed the river to attack it in the rear. Taylor had left orders that in case of an attack, if peril appeared imminent, signal guns must be fired, and he would hasten to the relief of the fort.

On the 6th, when the Mexicans began to plant cannon in the rear and Major Brown was mortally wounded, the signals were given, and Taylor marched for the Rio Grande on the evening of the 7th, with a little more than 2,000 men, having been reinforced by Texan volunteers and marines from the fleet. At noon the next day he fought and defeated Arista, with 6,000 troops, at PALO ALTO At 2 A.M. the next day his wearied army was summoned to renew its march, and, towards evening, fought a more sanguinary battle with the same Mexicans, at RESACA DE LA PALMA. Again the Americans were victorious. The Mexican army in Texas was now completely broken up. Arista saved himself by solitary flight across the Rio Grande. The garrison at Fort Brown was relieved. In the mean while, Congress had declared, May 11, 1846, that, " by the act of the republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that government and the United States," and authorized the President to raise 50,000 volunteers. They also (May 13) appropriated $10,000,000 for carrying on the war. The Secretary of War and General Scott planned a magnificent campaign. On May 23 the Mexican government also declared war.

THE FIGHT IN THE STREETS OF MONTEREY.

General Taylor crossed the Rio Grande, drove the Mexican troops from Matamoras, took possession of the town (May 18), and remained there until August, when he received reinforcements and orders from his government. Then, with more than 6,000 troops, he moved on Monterey, defended by General Ampudia, with more than 9,000 troops. It was a very strongly built town, at the foot of the great Sierra Madre. A siege commenced Sept. 21 and ended with the capture of the place on the 24th. General Wool had been directed to muster and prepare for service the volunteers gathered at Bexar, in Texas, and by the middle of July 12,000 of them had been mustered into the service. Of these, 9,000 were sent to reinforce Taylor. Wool went up the Rio Grande with about 3,000 troops, crossed the river at Presidio, penetrated Mexico, and, in the last of October, reached Monclova, 70 miles northwest of Monterey. He pushed on to Coahuila, where he obtained ample supplies for his own and Taylor's troops. General Taylor had agreed to an armistice at Monterey. This was ended Nov. 13, by order of his government, when, leaving General Butler in command at Monterey, he marched to Victoria, the capital of Tamaulipas, with the intention of attacking Tampico, on the coast. Meanwhile, General Worth, with 900 men, had taken possession of Saltillo (Nov. 15), the capital of Coahuila.

Taylor, ascertaining that Tampico had already surrendered to the Americans (Nov. 14), and that Santa Ana was collecting a large force at San Luis Potosi, returned to Monterey to reinforce Worth, if necessary. Worth was joined at Saltillo by Wool's division (Dec. 20), and Taylor again advanced to Victoria (Dec. 29). Just as he was about to proceed to a vigorous campaign, Taylor received orders from General Scott, at Vera Cruz, to send the latter a large portion of his (Taylor's) best officers and troops, and to act only on the defensive. This was a severe trial for Taylor, but he cheerfully obeyed. He and Wool were left with an aggregate force of only about 5,000 men, of whom only 500 were regulars, to oppose 20,000, then gathering at San Luis Potosi, under Santa Ana. Taylor and Wool united their forces, Feb. 4, 1847, on the San Luis road, determined to fight the Mexicans, who were approaching. The opportunity was not long delayed. The Americans fell back to Buena Vista, within 11 miles of Saltillo, and encamped in a narrow defile, and there a severe battle was fought, Feb. 23, resulting in victory for the Americans. GENERAL STEPHEN W. KEARNY was placed in command of the Army of the West, with instructions to conquer New Mexico and California. He left Fort Leavenworth in June, 1846, and, after a journey of 900 miles over the great plains and among mountain ranges, he arrived at Santa Fe, Aug. 18, having met with no resistance. Appointing Charles Brent governor, he marched towards California, and was soon met by an express from COMMODORE ROBERT F. STOCKTON, and LIEUT-COL. JOHN C. FREMONT, informing him that the conquest of California had been achieved. Fremont and a party of explorers, sixty in number, joined by American settlers in the vicinity of San Francisco, had captured a Mexican force at Sonoma pass, June 15, 1846, with the garrison, nine cannon, and 250 muskets. He then defeated another force at Sonoma, and drove the Mexican authorities out of that region of country. On July 5 the Americans in California declared themselves independent, and put Fremont at the head of affairs. On the 7th Commodore Sloat, with a squadron, bombarded and captured Monterey, on the coast; on the 9th Commodore Montgomery took possession of San Francisco. Commodore Stockton and Colonel Fremont took possession of Los Angeles on Aug. 17, and there they were joined by Kearny, who had sent the main body of his troops back to Santa Fe. Fremont went to Monterey, and there assumed the office of governor, and proclaimed, Feb. 8, 1847, the annexation of California to the United States Meanwhile, Colonel Doniphan, detached by Kearny, with 1,000 Missouri volunteers, marched towards Chihuahua to join General Wool. In two engagements with Mexicans he was victorious, and entered the capital of Chihuahua in triumph, March 2, and took possession of the province. After resting six weeks, he joined Wool at Saltillo, and thence returned to New Orleans, having made a perilous march from the Mississippi of about 5,000 miles.

The conquest of all northern Mexico was now complete, and General Scott was on his march for the capital. He had landed at Vera Cruz, March 9, with an army of 13,000 men. It had been borne thither by a powerful squadron, commanded by Commodore Conner. He invested the city of VERA CRUZ on the 13th, and on the 27th it was surrendered with the castle of San Juan de Ulloa. Scott took possession of the city two days afterwards, and, on April 8, the advance of his army, under General Twiggs, began its march for the capital, by way of Jalapa. Santa Ana had advanced, with 12,000 men, to meet the invaders, and had taken post at Cerro Gordo, a difficult mountain pass at the foot of the Eastern Cordilleras. Scott had followed Twiggs with the rest of his army, and, on April IS, defeated the Mexicans at that strong pass, and, pushing forward, entered Jalapa on the 19th. On the 22d the American flag was unfurled over the Castle of Perote, on the summit of the Eastern Cordilleras, 50 miles from Jalapa. This was considered the strongest fortress in Mexico, excepting Vera Cruz. It was surrendered without resistance, and with it fifty-four pieces of cannon, some mortars, and a large amount of munitions of war.

Battle of Churubusco
BATTLE OF CHURUBUSCO.

Onward the victorious army marched, and entered the fortified city of Puebla, May 15, a city of 80,000 inhabitants; and there the army rested until August. Being reinforced, Scott then pushed on towards the capital. From that very spot on the lofty Cordilleras, Cortez first looked down upon the quiet valley of Mexico, centuries before. Scott now beheld that spacious panorama, the seat of the capital of the Aztecs—the " Halls of the Montezuma." He pushed cautiously forward, and approached the stronghold before the city. The fortified camp of Contreras was taken by the Americans on Aug. 20. Then the strong fortress of San Antonio yielded the same day. The heights of Churubusco were attacked. Santa Anna advanced, and soon the whole region became one great battlefield. Churubusco was taken, and Santa Anna fled towards the capital. A Mexican army, 30,000 strong, had in a single day been broken up by another less than one-third its strength in number, and at almost every step the Americans were successful. Full 4,000 Mexicans were killed and wounded, 3,000 were made prisoners, and thirty-seven pieces of cannon were captured on that memorable day. The Americans had lost 1,100 in killed and wounded.

They might now have entered the city of Mexico in triumph, but General Scott preferred to bear the olive-branch rather than the palm. As he advanced to Tacuba, Aug. 21, only 7 miles from the city, he met a deputation from Santa Anna to ask for an armistice, preparatory to negotiations for peace. It was granted. NICHOLAS P. TRIST, appointed by the United States government to treat for peace, was present. The treacherous Santa Anna had made this only a pretext to gain time to strengthen the defenses of the city. When the trick was discovered, Scott declared the armistice at an end, and advanced upon the city. Less than 4,000 Americans attacked Santa Ana with 14,000 Mexicans, Sept. 8, at Molino del Rey (the King's Mill), near Chapultepec. The combatants fought desperately and suffered dreadfully. The Mexicans left almost 1,000 dead on the field; the Americans lost 800. The lofty battlemented hill of Chapultepec was doomed. It was the last place to be defended outside of the city. It was attacked by mortar and cannon shells and round-shot, Sept. 12, and the assault continued until the next day, when the American flag waved in triumph over its shattered castle. The Mexicans fled into the city, pursued by the Americans to the very gates.

That night Santa Ana and his troops, with the civil officers, fled from the city, and, at 4 A.M. the next day, a deputation from the municipal authorities waited upon Scott, begging him to spare the town and treat for peace. He would make no terms, but entered the city, Sept. 13, a conqueror ; and from the grand plaza he proclaimed the conquest of the republic of Mexico. Santa Ana made some feeble efforts to regain lost power, but failed. He was defeated in two slight battles. Before the close of October he was stripped of every command, and fled for safety to the shores of the Gulf. The president of the Mexican Congress assumed provisional authority, and, on Feb. 2, 1848, that body concluded a treaty of peace with the United States commissioners at Guadalupe-Hidalgo. It was ratified by both governments, and, on July 4, 1848, President Polk proclaimed it. It stipulated the evacuation of Mexico by the American troops within three months; the payment of $3,000,000 in hand, and $12,000,000 in four annual installments, by the United States to Mexico, for New Mexico and California, which had become territory of the United States by conquest, and, in addition, to assume debts due certain citizens of the United States from Mexico to the amount of $3,500,000. It also fixed boundaries and otherwise adjusted matters in dispute.

General Scott Mexican War
GENERAL SCOTT'S ENTRY INTO THE CITY OF MEXICO.

Unfaithful American citizens plotted schemes for the extinction of the Mexican Republic (see KNIGHTS OF THE GOLDEN CIRCLE). While the plots were fast ripening, the two governments successfully negotiated a treaty by which the boundary-line between the United States and Mexico was defined and fixed. The treaty was ratified early in 1854, and it was agreed that the decisions of the commissioners appointed under it to revise the boundary should be final. By that treaty the United States was to be released from all obligations imposed by the treaty of peace with Mexico in 1848, and, as a consideration for this release, and for the territory ceded by Mexico, the United States agreed to pay the latter $10,000,000—$7,000,000 on the ratification of the treaty, and the remainder as soon as the boundary-line should be established. These conditions were complied with, and the peaceful relations between the two countries have never since been broken. For documents relating to the war, see POLK, JAMES KNOX. See, also, the titles of the military and naval officers above mentioned, and of the scenes of battles. See CHAPULTEPEC, BATTLE OF; CHURUBUSCO, BATTLE OF.


Apparently people seem to want to think that Mexico was bullied into the loss of California and Texas but the opposite is true.

[irishgrl]

By the way and for the record, I am not anti-Mexican. My point in this thread has always revolved around the aspect of illegality of these immigrants, which by the way have come from more than just Mexico (but the overwhelming majority have been Mexican) as I posted in another article, these illegals are from around the globe, to wit:

Those arrested in the operation came from nations around the globe, including Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

[becca]

Much of the excerpt seems to be poorly written unless it's that parts are missing or something. I write poorly sometimes but I'm not making money from a University publisher, and I never have even graduated high school. There are other histories from other periods, other sides perhaps even, that paint a portrait of deceipt, unfair dealings, broken agreements and so forth essentially starting at how the territory was simply invaded illegally which is about how most countires or empires add territory anyway. But as I say, Santa Ana was an awful character himself and faced with choosing between him or joining the union a great many finally went with joining the union even though they regretted it not long after. The U.S. acted from the beginning as if it's manifest destiny was to rule as much of N. America as possible such as in the war of 1812 and populating and developing the west. Law always came after the fact, retroactively (and to make the history books look good if you don't look too closely).

Well, the land has been pretty valuable which had been part of Spanish America, and they took it from the natives in the first place in any case, even more gruesomely then the later northern Europeans. But it seems a bit odd outside the U.S. sometimes to have people in places with Spanish names like Nevada and Texas and California complaining about being invaded by Spanish speaking people. In Canada the English beat the French but we allowed them to keep their language officially and maybe the U.S. should have done the same, or at least for the historically Spanish states.

[irishgrl]

Much of the excerpt seems to be poorly written unless it's that parts are missing or something. I write poorly sometimes but I'm not making money from a University publisher, and I never have even graduated high school. There are other histories from other periods, other sides perhaps even, that paint a portrait of deceipt, unfair dealings, broken agreements and so forth essentially starting at how the territory was simply invaded illegally which is about how most countires or empires add territory anyway. But as I say, Santa Ana was an awful character himself and faced with choosing between him or joining the union a great many finally went with joining the union even though they regretted it not long after. The U.S. acted from the beginning as if it's manifest destiny was to rule as much of N. America as possible such as in the war of 1812 and populating and developing the west. Law always came after the fact, retroactively (and to make the history books look good if you don't look too closely).

Well, the land has been pretty valuable which had been part of Spanish America, and they took it from the natives in the first place in any case, even more gruesomely then the later northern Europeans. But it seems a bit odd outside the U.S. sometimes to have people in places with Spanish names like Nevada and Texas and California complaining about being invaded by Spanish speaking people. In Canada the English beat the French but we allowed them to keep their language officially and maybe the U.S. should have done the same, or at least for the historically Spanish states.


California wasnt as disputed as Texas was, since vast tracts of land were given to provisional Governors (white) to manage and control. The original "thief" if you will, was SPAIN, who set about sytematically establishing missions and converting the natives to Christianity. Prior to the advent of the influx of white people, California was a mix of pastoral natives and renegade outlaws from Mexico who preyed upon the unwary few white settlers in CA.
By the time California joined the Union, there were more whites than any other race in this area and as you know, possession is 9/10ths of the law (that is, if you possess something your chances are almost assured you "own" it)


I realize the articles I posted may appear choppy by todays standards but they were the first two I came across that detailed the events around Texas and CA. And I did leave some parts out, because they were a duplicate of the others. I could do another search and bring in other articles but it doesnt change the basic facts that (1) Texas was independent (first thru war, then thru treaty) for 9 years before Mexico decided it wanted Texas back (thus not honoring its own treaty) and (2) California was primarily populated by white people at the time of Commodore Sloat's military seizure, all of which were more than happy to join the Union.

As an aside, When I took a California History class in college, there was an idea presented that there is a theory among some people (not saying I agree, just posting the theory) that Mexico never got over the loss of California and Texas and has systematically been infiltrating these two states as a way of reconquering from within. Some people believe this is true and are deathly afraid that this scheme will succeed!

one other thing: about the language, I think its admirable that the English allowed the French to keep their language in Canada but at the same time, I think it can cause a division between peoples. In effect you have two distinctly different cultures, seemingly existing side by side, yet not blending.

Since language is a huge part of a nation's identity, I for one think it is important that it be identified and USED. What you speak at home is your own business, but its unrealistic, especially in a country with as many cultures as the US has, to keep trying to accomodate so many languages. If you come here to LIVE, you need to be able to speak the language. It makes life easier all the way around I think...