Mexico Teeters Between Recent U.S. Friendship and 170 Years of Hostility

Quote: Pacomartin

The Mexicans raised their rifles to the Americans, including the sailors still on the boat, and forcibly escorted them to the police headquarters for questioning.

The most that should have taken place is forced to sling rifles and march under escort back to their ship. I can't understand a shore party without someone who knows enough to order a taco and an invited foreign vessel not having an English speaking escort assigned to it by the Spanish/Mexicans/French/Constitutionalists/Whatever.

Here's what happened:

Feb 5th 1917, Mexico adopted a new constitution, which said government owns all the lands and waters in the country. People could own land, but only the surface. Whatever lay underground, was government property.

Next Golden Boy Trump reacted to the Mexican government's seizure of US-owned oil fields in Mexico in 1846 by building a wall in 2017.

What part of it don't you understand?

Now, anyone interested in actual facts and not ravings by Trump supporters, feel free to ask what really happened. For one thing, oil wasn't a major industry in 1846, and wouldn't be for decades. For another, though the 1917 constitution eminently allowed for the seizure of foreign-owned oil fields, this didn't happen until late in the 1930s.

'Next Golden Boy Trump reacted to the Mexican government's seizure of US-owned oil fields in Mexico in 1846 by building a wall in 2017."

Was gonna ask what you were writing on another thread. No need to now, must be FANTASY.

Quote: buzzardknot

'Next Golden Boy Trump reacted to the Mexican government's seizure of US-owned oil fields in Mexico in 1846 by building a wall in 2017."

Was gonna ask what you were writing on another thread. No need to now, must be FANTASY.

Oil fields seized 13 years before the discovery of oil?

Quote: Nareed

For one thing, oil wasn't a major industry in 1846, and wouldn't be for decades.

That is sort of an understatement. Oil was not even an industry in 1846 and was probably limited to natives looking for something to start fires. It certainly wasn't anything you would start a war over.

The Scottish chemist James Young in 1847 noticed a natural petroleum seepage in the Riddings colliery at Alfreton, Derbyshire from which he distilled a light thin oil suitable for use as lamp oil, at the same time obtaining a thicker oil suitable for lubricating machinery. In 1848, Young set up a small business refining the crude oil. The new oils were successful, but the supply of oil from the coal mine soon began to fail (eventually being exhausted in 1851).

Edwin Drake's 1859 well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, is popularly considered the first modern well. Drake's well is probably singled out because it was drilled, not dug; because it used a steam engine; because there was a company associated with it; and because it touched off a major boom.

The whole series of events leading to the Mexican War in the 1840s was one of those boring things that make for dull history reading, and that shouldn't have led to a conflict, much less a disastrous war. But Santa Ana was a stupid dumb fuck (SDF for short) who was hated by his own people even before he lost half the country to the Yankees.

People like Santa Ana can be counted upon to turn any disagreement, no matter how minor, into a conflict. The very bad news, is the US is now led by such an SDF.

Good luck with that.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just a few changes to make life harder and intolerable to illegal aliens could send and turn many back. That starts to dry up remittances. Then Mexico actually has to really fix their system.

The vast majority of those remittances that send you into such a tizzy are sent to Mexico by people who are here legally.

"Making life intolerable" for a group of people who already have it pretty hard seems like a really sweet and humane thing to do. But hey, if doing so fulfills Trumper fantasies, why not? I'll bet Trumpers get erections when they think of police beating up Mexicans...mmmm...(pant pant pant)

Quote: stinkingliberal

The vast majority of those remittances that send you into such a tizzy are sent to Mexico by people who are here legally.

"Making life intolerable" for a group of people who already have it pretty hard seems like a really sweet and humane thing to do. But hey, if doing so fulfills Trumper fantasies, why not? I'll bet Trumpers get erections when they think of police beating up Mexicans...mmmm...(pant pant pant)

What a sick puppy.

Quote: buzzardknot

What a sick puppy.

Personal insult. Three days watching Breitbart.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just a few changes to make life harder and intolerable to illegal aliens could send and turn many back. That starts to dry up remittances. Then Mexico actually has to really fix their system.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/would-trump-s-plan-stop-remittances-mexico-work-n551211
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala

According to the Pew Hispanic Center study as of March 2005, the undocumented U.S. population had reached 11 million or more, including more than 6.5 million undocumented Mexicans.

The $25 billion in remittances cited by Trump is available from a number of reliable sources, and represents the amount of money sent through traceable channels. It includes money from both legals and illegals (nobody knows what percentage is from which group). It does not include money sent via back door channels, something the Arabs have called "hawala" since the middle ages.

Nobody knows the real figures, but it is possible that those 6.5 million undocumented workers are sending $6 billion through legal channels (averaging $1000 per year per person) and another $12 billion via back door channels. The rest of the $25 billion is coming from legal immigrants and from friends and relatives.

When DJT was running for POTUS, he had a website called payforthewall which has since been taken down. In it he described a simple plan where people sending remittances through official channels would be asked to show proof of citizenship on day one. On day two the Mexican government would offer to pay for the wall. On day three the US would end the program of requiring for proof of citizenship.

Without any judgement as to "right or wrong", let me ask a practical question. Why would the Mexican government pay between $1000 and $3000 per person for the right of undocumented workers to send money home by legal channels? Won't the majority of undocumented Mexicans in the USA simply resort to backdoor channels to send money home?