|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
The U.S. border crisis has an historical underlay that is generally disregarded in analyses of the “illegal migrant crisis.” Unconscious as well as longstanding conflicts impact so-called current events. Most of the “migrants” are from Mexico, Central and South America, although clearly with the Biden-manipulated influx we also see cohorts of Chinese, Middle Eastern, and African “migrants.” [The word migrants is in quotation marks because at one level they are migrants, but they also might be referred to as invaders, illegal border crossers, Trojan horse warriors sent to undermine the politics and economics of the U.S., or as pawns in a Democrat Party strategy to undermine Republican strength in the U.S.]
This writer saw about 20 “migrants” from Bangladesh and Pakistan being interviewed as they trekked into their new life. The interviewer asked them how they got here, and to a man (they were all men) they said they had walked. The interviewer was incredulous and asked, “From Pakistan?! How could you have walked from Pakistan?” But the migrant stuck to his guns and answered with a straight face, “Yes, we walked.” The role of NGOs was not mentioned, nor flights, nor pocket money, nor meals, etc.
Tensions over our Southern border with Mexico extend back to the 19th century. Mexico actually invited Americans to come settle in what was then Mexican territory in what is today northeastern Texas. Sam Houston and various frontiersmen accepted Mexico’s offer, but conflicts arose and Texas became independent of Mexico in 1836, which included the major defeat at San Jacinto of the Mexican forces, led by Santa Ana, by Gen. Sam Houston, who led the Texans. Texas became an independent Republic of Texas from 1836 to 1845.
By 1844 President James Polk came into office and was committed to a doctrine of Manifest Destiny which promoted the idea that U.S. territory should expand dramatically across the continent beyond the vast territory that had been added by Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase. This ideological position was based on a vision of democratic ideals and rights-based political philosophy that were uniquely American being put in place throughout the North American continent. Manifest Destiny was not a mere power-play ideology as leftists often portray it.
The phrase “Manifest Destiny,” which emerged as the best-known expression of this mindset, first appeared in an editorial published in the July-August 1845 issue of The Democratic Review. In the editorial, the writer criticized the opposition that still lingered against the annexation of Texas, urging national unity on behalf of “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” Here the key word is not “power” but “Providence.” This word is now rarely used, but the Founding Fathers and others following them were fond of this word because it communicated a sense of God-wrought expansion of the principles of sound governance based on biblical values that were the hallmark of our founding and success as a nation.
The crisis between Mexico and the U.S. came to a head in 1846 when U.S. troops crossed the Nueces River into the land area between it and the Rio Grande. The U.S. claimed the Rio Grande was the boundary between us and Mexico, while Mexico claimed the Nueces was. Thus, the crossing of the Nueces by U.S. troops was adjudged by Mexico to be an act of war and the Mexican-American War began. Mexico lost the war and about one-third of its territory was taken by the U.S., including nearly all of present-day California, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.
For this writer, the expansion of democratic political ideals claimed by Manifest Destiny actually pre-dates the 19th century and goes back to the adversarial relationship between Spain and England in the 16th century. That tension reached its climax during the reign of Elizabeth I, who was intensely evangelical (Protestant) in her spirituality. Plots were formed against her and after she supported the Protestants in the Netherlands in their revolt against Spain, the opposition of Spain intensified.
Spain directed its fleet (armada) to attack England in 1588. As History.com notes,
Just after midnight on August 8, the English sent eight burning ships into the crowded harbor at Calais. The panicked Spanish ships were forced to cut their anchors and sail out to sea to avoid catching fire. The disorganized fleet, completely out of formation, was attacked by the English off Gravelines at dawn. In a decisive battle, the superior English guns won the day, and the devastated Armada was forced to retreat north to Scotland. The English navy pursued the Spanish as far as Scotland and then turned back for want of supplies. Battered by storms and suffering from a dire lack of supplies, the Armada sailed on a hard journey back to Spain around Scotland and Ireland.
That defeat of the Spanish marked the ascendancy of England as a great power.
Lastly, we should recall the Spanish-American War. Spain resisted the Cuban desire for independence, and this resistance threatened U.S. investments in Cuba at the end of the 19th century. In April 1898, Spain declared war on the U.S., but by December they had lost the war. Under the Treaty of Paris signed in December 1898, Spain renounced all claims to Cuba, ceded Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States and transferred sovereignty over the Philippines to the United States for $20 million.
If we look at our southern border conflict within this wider historical context of a longstanding conflict with Catholic, Spanish-speaking people and English-speaking Protestants, we see a deeper dimension of our so-called “immigration crisis.” Certainly, the Democrats are looking for more voters who are dependent upon government and will cling to their left-wing programs and superficial philosophy. However, their interest has a deep historical context.
Our differences with the Spanish-speaking world are longstanding and real.
Oh please gimme a break. The current problem has nothing to do with Catholic versus Protestant or English culture versus Spanish culture. It has everything to do with Marxism versus Capitalism.
England and Ireland are collapsing too and it isn’t because a horde of Mexicans are crossing their borders.
No break, MECHA is serious, and though they’re marxists, they aren’t doing their “reconquista” for Marx or Marxism, but racism. England and Ireland are being invaded by muslims. The UK marxists helping them won’t be living under marxism, they’ll be living under islam.
Another bit of obtuse “brilliance” from our idiot rezidentura scold.
England and Ireland are collapsing from the uncontrolled influx of Pakistanis and other Muslims and are being enabled by PM Starmer’s progressive government.
It has nothing to do with Marxism versus Capitalism in this country or that country. In both England and America it has always been about replacement of the voting populace.
As usual you are always waiting for someone else to do something.
As a person who is 1/2 white and half mestizo I am not sure where to go with this. The issue is not Spanish and English. The division is between Progressives and Socialists that are just plain old communists and God fearing patriotic Americans. Leftists are either deceitful or ignorant, My father’s family was here way before the Americans came. We have been in New Mexico for over 5oo years now. His family’s 1st language was Spanish. He served in the Korean War and took part in the Berlin Air Lift. He served 23 years in the USAF. He instilled in me a love for country and a hatred of communism. He would be appalled at what’s going on today. But I can assure you Spanish was NOT one of his our problems.
Mark, I think you are right on target with your comments. We are no longer a nation of ethnics. We are Americans. Our differences should be a moot point today. We should have moved beyond making our grievances the major reason for our protests and have moved forward toward mutually beneficial policies. There have been forces within our country that consistently seek chaos instead of peaceful union. Personally, I put my trust in Christ, because only he will produce permanent peace.
England, however, is collapsing because it basically refuses to restrict Muslim immigration, among other factors. That situation actually supports the author’s point: cultural and political problems emerge when a group of immigrants whose values fundamentally contradict the values of their new culture either refused to assimilate or aren’t encouraged to assimilate.
Why don’t you stop with this beaner stuff. Considering how revolting your sexual lifestyle is you have no right disparaging other people.
The Demo-Rats want Open Borders because they need all those illegal Votes to stay in Power
“Migrant” had always been universally understood to refer to the seasonal move northward of “migratory” birds in the Spring of each year, as the weather in the northern hemisphere naturally warmed, to lay their eggs, hatch them, and then have several months of warm summer to grow from young hatchlings into young adults–and then to join the flock to fly back southward again as the cold of fall and winter approached.
Also, of course, in reference to agricultural workers who seasonally came north to California — sure, probably most of them “illegal” — to harvest crops at low wages, but better than they could get in their home countries. which is why they came here — and then to return home, after that season, to their own miserable, impoverished home countries.
What we’re seeing now is not either of those two types of honorable “migrants.” Today’s “Migrants” (a euphemism, of course) come here for the free (i.e. U.S. Taxpaper-funded) “bennies” and no requirement that they ever leave and become honestly self-supporting, or even bother to learn English.
I’d rather host a goose and her brood of goslings, on my living room floor, or even an illegal who brought his own sleeping bag, who was here for just 2 month, to pick lettuce before returning Home, than pay for any Illegal who moved in and felt Entitled to stay forever, while, incredibly, resenting me and making demands.
Any questions or objections?
I couldn’t have written it better. You are 100% correct, sir.
After the Mexican-American War, some wanted to annex Baja California, which should have been a no-brainer. Some also wanted to annex the whole of Mexico. I often wonder what that would have been like.
We shouldv’e annexed it all. It was a mistake not to. So what if Mexico is full of beaners? America is packed with them too.
And Mexico has some great natural resources. Oil, natural gas and minerals.
Thanks Jeff !!! Looking at the map, it seems to me like a no-brainer.
More than likely it would have been a disaster. A country can be too big and too culturally diverse to run well and not fall apart. Diversity is not a strength.
As it stands America is falling apart right now.
Maybe you can do us all a favor and move to, say, Ireland, before it all comes tumbling down on top of you.
You are about as useful as the termites that invade houses and larger buildings.
What a thoroughly miserable, depressing loser you are, with your stupid books and your pathetic heroes.
1588 didn’t mean the ascendency of England.
It took England another 67 years to conquer only Jamaika…. for example…
England started its ascendency to be a global power in the mid-18th century and accomplished it’s march to be nr. 1 in the early 19th century. After having defeated France.
Britain was then allied with Austria, Russia, Spain, Prussia, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Ottoman Empire, ..
Catholicism wasn’t per se a riving element berween Spain and England. This is an all too narrow perspective of European politics those days.
England fighted Spain in 1588 side by side with the multireligious Netherlands and religiously driven civil war torn France.
The wars of the Netherlands, France and England were about national souvereignty.
And this I think is the fight of Trump, too: it’s all about the souverain nation state.
Even with the recent trend towards converting strong verbs to weak ones, I never thought I’d encounter “fighted”.
I just never thinked it.
“fighted” is standard Ebonics. I heard it often 🙂