4 ms·

Sometimes a border is not a border, it is scar. An ethnic group was already living in that area and one day they find themselves at one side of the fence.

by huherto 11y ago

MCRed 11y ago
All to protect mafiosos who pretend to be organizing "unions" for the "workers" benefit (which is illogical if you think about it due to the Principle-Agent problem, and makes no sense economically- the bosses will cut deals best for the bosses, not for the union membership.) Keeping talented people down is just a side effect.
winter_blue 11y ago
You are actually right, historically speaking. After the United States victory in the Mexican-American War, there was a movement to annex all of Mexico.[1] The decision to not do so was based on racial concerns. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina who opposed the annexation of Mexico, made this speech to Congress: We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement
gedy 11y ago
You are very right, especially places like colonial Africa. However in the context of California, Arizona, etc much of the immigration is from Guatemala, Central America, etc, not the true native tribes like the Chumash, Luiseño, et al who are still here. Just pointing this out because "division" gets bandied about a lot inaccurately.
- huherto 11y ago
  I am thinking about "El Norte". http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in...

Sometimes a border is not a border, it is scar. An ethnic group was already living in that area and one day they find themselves at one side of the fence.

by huherto 11y ago

Sometimes a border is not a border, it is scar. An ethnic group was already living in that area and one day they find themselves at one side of the fence.

MCRed 11y ago

All to protect mafiosos who pretend to be organizing "unions" for the "workers" benefit (which is illogical if you think about it due to the Principle-Agent problem, and makes no sense economically- the bosses will cut deals best for the bosses, not for the union membership.) Keeping talented people down is just a side effect.

winter_blue 11y ago

You are actually right, historically speaking. After the United States victory in the Mexican-American War, there was a movement to annex all of Mexico.[1] The decision to not do so was based on racial concerns. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina who opposed the annexation of Mexico, made this speech to Congress: We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement

gedy 11y ago

You are very right, especially places like colonial Africa. However in the context of California, Arizona, etc much of the immigration is from Guatemala, Central America, etc, not the true native tribes like the Chumash, Luiseño, et al who are still here. Just pointing this out because "division" gets bandied about a lot inaccurately.

huherto 11y ago
I am thinking about "El Norte". http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in...