C
ClassWarz
Guest
Here we see expressed the key anti-immigrant motivation: "Mexicans are brown
and poor."
Guadalupe-Hidalgo revisited:
http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_8489.shtml
quote
From Diverse Online
Archives 1998
Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo under new scrutiny
By Roberto Rodriguez
Jul 13, 2007, 17:06
As people in Mexico and the United States commemorate the 150th anniversary of
the end of the Mexican American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo has come
under new scrutiny from scholars in both countries. They have been examining
the implications of the treaty which ended the war, and its political
relevance and meaning to modern Mexico-U.S. relations.
A series of conferences from California, to New Mexico, to Texas, and to
Michigan are being held this year to examine these questions. Of particular
concern to many scholars is the treaty's relevance to land claims and the
civil, political, and human rights of Mexican Americans.
"Having legally trained Latino academicians analyze the treaty makes the
conferences very significant," says George Martinez, law professor at Southern
Methodist University (SMU) Law School.
Scholars also have been examining the parallelism of the treaty and the North
American Free Trade Agreement -- especially the issue of immigration within
the context of treaties.
Historians have long analyzed the treaty, but lacking legal training, they did
not probe issues with a legal analysis.
Prior to the 1960s, there were very few Latino legal scholars in the United
States. Martinez notes that those attending this year's conferences represent
the first generation of Latinos trained in law to examine the legal issues
arising from the treaty.
The NAFTA Comparison
The general public thinks of the treaty as a dated document from a previous
era. But legal scholars have a different perspective. Martinez says that in
addition to the courts continually affirming that the treaty is a living
document, there are many lessons to be learned from it -- particularly in
relationship to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
An SMU Law School conference in March, "A Tale of Two Treaties: U.S.-Mexico
relations through the Lens of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and the NAFTA,"
addressed the subject. The conference was designed to highlight the parallels,
such as how disputes are supposed to be resolved under the treaties.
According to Martinez, one of the similarities between the treaties is that
they were both negotiated at times when Mexico was very weak. As a result of
the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Mexico was put at a great disadvantage,
resulting in the loss of nearly half of its land in 1848. Similarly, he says
that as a result of NAFTA, "Mexico will again be at a great disadvantage."
Kevin Johnson, a professor at the University of California-Davis School of Law
who presented at a Treaty of Guadalupe conference at Southwestern University
School of Law in Los Angeles and who also spoke at SMU, has focused his
research on immigration in relation to the treaties. He states that in
examining NAFTA, it is clear that the issue of immigration was left out of the
treaty because allowing more brown-skinned Mexicans into the U.S. would have
torpedoed the agreement.
A trade agreement would normally contain provisions for workers to migrate
freely -- or at least more freely. But because of the anti-immigrant sentiment
in this country, that provision wasn't even discussed. This is the opposite of
what has occurred in Europe, he notes.
Mexicans aren't viewed as people who Americans would want to immigrate to this
country, says Johnson, because "Mexicans are brown and poor."
There's a deep anti-Mexican sentiment in this country and to have allowed more
Mexicans to come into the United States -- especially during California's
anti-immigrant Proposition 187 -- would have made it impossible for the
president to sign NAFTA, he says.
"Proposition 187 and the anti-immigrant movement are actually anti-Mexican,"
he adds.
The Historical Backdrop
According to Johnson, Mexicans have, historically, been considered White for
legal purposes in some U.S. jurisdictions. However, rarely have they ever been
treated as full human beings, with full human rights. For purposes of
naturalization, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo considered Mexicans "White,"
yet they have always been treated as non-Whites socially, he says.
Guadalupe Luna, a professor at the Northern Illinois University School of Law
who is presenting at several of the conferences, has studied extensively the
issue of land loss as a result of the war. In her view, "The Treaty of
Guadalupe is indeed a living document" which covers Chicanos/Hispanics and the
rights of native peoples.
"It has no ending date and it is the supreme law of the land," she says.
In Luna's opinion, this is important because it means that the rights -- land,
civil, political, and human -- of Mexican Americans and Native Americans are
still protected under the treaty. In a recent in-depth legal article in which
she dissected the issue of land loss, Luna concluded that Mexicans and Native
people were treated disparately in order to facilitate land theft and land
fraud subsequent to the war.
Historians have erroneously concluded that much of the land was lost because
of misinterpretations between Spanish common law -- which was in effect during
the awarding of land grants in "New Spain" and Mexico prior to the war -- and
English common law. However Luna notes that regardless of the interpretation,
in the end the courts almost always ruled in favor of Anglos and to the
detriment of Mexicans and their descendants.
Today, much of the land that was lost through fraud, ended up in the hands of
land barons -- and later, the U.S. government. Much of that land -- which
today is managed by the U.S. forest service and the Bureau of Land
Management -- is currently in dispute. In fact, U.S. Rep. Bill Redmond
(R-N.M.), with the support of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), is supposed
to introduce a bill that will create a land commission to study the issue of
land in New Mexico.
The Irony of Demographics
Chris Cameron, a professor at Southwestern School of Law, says that part of
the reason much of the land was lost is that Article 10 of the treaty was
taken out by the U.S. Senate. And although the spirit of that article was
reintroduced into a later agreement, the Protocol of Queretaro, it was not
binding on U.S. courts.
That spirit, according to Cameron, was to see that the Spanish and Mexican
communal and private land grants were respected and that disputes regarding
such land were to be adjudicated according to Spanish and Mexican common law.
By rejecting Article 10, "The United States completely shifted the burden of
proof, from the land owners to the squatters and from the land grant heirs to
the U.S. government."
The great irony, says Cameron, is that the treaty will eventually be fulfilled
as a result of demographics and time.
"Mexicans and other Latinos are buying the land back [in California and other
parts of the Southwest]," Cameron says. "The future is a brown future."
Not only is the issue of land grants very much alive because of the treaty's
viability, but the issue is important because it is tied to the issue of
poverty. Luna's studies have established a direct correlation between land
loss and poverty.
"That's why we're farm workers and not farmers," she says.
The issue remains alive because of the possibility -- however remote -- that
land grant heirs may get their lands back. if that happens, Luna says, there
is a high probability that they would be able to climb out of poverty.
Cameron concludes that legal scholars examining the treaty will help fill in
the gaps that the historians have been unable to complete.
"Historians have a great ability to tell stories. This will give legal
scholars the opportunity to do the same, " says Cameron.
COPYRIGHT 1998 Cox, Matthews & Associates
and poor."
Guadalupe-Hidalgo revisited:
http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_8489.shtml
quote
From Diverse Online
Archives 1998
Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo under new scrutiny
By Roberto Rodriguez
Jul 13, 2007, 17:06
As people in Mexico and the United States commemorate the 150th anniversary of
the end of the Mexican American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo has come
under new scrutiny from scholars in both countries. They have been examining
the implications of the treaty which ended the war, and its political
relevance and meaning to modern Mexico-U.S. relations.
A series of conferences from California, to New Mexico, to Texas, and to
Michigan are being held this year to examine these questions. Of particular
concern to many scholars is the treaty's relevance to land claims and the
civil, political, and human rights of Mexican Americans.
"Having legally trained Latino academicians analyze the treaty makes the
conferences very significant," says George Martinez, law professor at Southern
Methodist University (SMU) Law School.
Scholars also have been examining the parallelism of the treaty and the North
American Free Trade Agreement -- especially the issue of immigration within
the context of treaties.
Historians have long analyzed the treaty, but lacking legal training, they did
not probe issues with a legal analysis.
Prior to the 1960s, there were very few Latino legal scholars in the United
States. Martinez notes that those attending this year's conferences represent
the first generation of Latinos trained in law to examine the legal issues
arising from the treaty.
The NAFTA Comparison
The general public thinks of the treaty as a dated document from a previous
era. But legal scholars have a different perspective. Martinez says that in
addition to the courts continually affirming that the treaty is a living
document, there are many lessons to be learned from it -- particularly in
relationship to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
An SMU Law School conference in March, "A Tale of Two Treaties: U.S.-Mexico
relations through the Lens of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and the NAFTA,"
addressed the subject. The conference was designed to highlight the parallels,
such as how disputes are supposed to be resolved under the treaties.
According to Martinez, one of the similarities between the treaties is that
they were both negotiated at times when Mexico was very weak. As a result of
the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Mexico was put at a great disadvantage,
resulting in the loss of nearly half of its land in 1848. Similarly, he says
that as a result of NAFTA, "Mexico will again be at a great disadvantage."
Kevin Johnson, a professor at the University of California-Davis School of Law
who presented at a Treaty of Guadalupe conference at Southwestern University
School of Law in Los Angeles and who also spoke at SMU, has focused his
research on immigration in relation to the treaties. He states that in
examining NAFTA, it is clear that the issue of immigration was left out of the
treaty because allowing more brown-skinned Mexicans into the U.S. would have
torpedoed the agreement.
A trade agreement would normally contain provisions for workers to migrate
freely -- or at least more freely. But because of the anti-immigrant sentiment
in this country, that provision wasn't even discussed. This is the opposite of
what has occurred in Europe, he notes.
Mexicans aren't viewed as people who Americans would want to immigrate to this
country, says Johnson, because "Mexicans are brown and poor."
There's a deep anti-Mexican sentiment in this country and to have allowed more
Mexicans to come into the United States -- especially during California's
anti-immigrant Proposition 187 -- would have made it impossible for the
president to sign NAFTA, he says.
"Proposition 187 and the anti-immigrant movement are actually anti-Mexican,"
he adds.
The Historical Backdrop
According to Johnson, Mexicans have, historically, been considered White for
legal purposes in some U.S. jurisdictions. However, rarely have they ever been
treated as full human beings, with full human rights. For purposes of
naturalization, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo considered Mexicans "White,"
yet they have always been treated as non-Whites socially, he says.
Guadalupe Luna, a professor at the Northern Illinois University School of Law
who is presenting at several of the conferences, has studied extensively the
issue of land loss as a result of the war. In her view, "The Treaty of
Guadalupe is indeed a living document" which covers Chicanos/Hispanics and the
rights of native peoples.
"It has no ending date and it is the supreme law of the land," she says.
In Luna's opinion, this is important because it means that the rights -- land,
civil, political, and human -- of Mexican Americans and Native Americans are
still protected under the treaty. In a recent in-depth legal article in which
she dissected the issue of land loss, Luna concluded that Mexicans and Native
people were treated disparately in order to facilitate land theft and land
fraud subsequent to the war.
Historians have erroneously concluded that much of the land was lost because
of misinterpretations between Spanish common law -- which was in effect during
the awarding of land grants in "New Spain" and Mexico prior to the war -- and
English common law. However Luna notes that regardless of the interpretation,
in the end the courts almost always ruled in favor of Anglos and to the
detriment of Mexicans and their descendants.
Today, much of the land that was lost through fraud, ended up in the hands of
land barons -- and later, the U.S. government. Much of that land -- which
today is managed by the U.S. forest service and the Bureau of Land
Management -- is currently in dispute. In fact, U.S. Rep. Bill Redmond
(R-N.M.), with the support of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), is supposed
to introduce a bill that will create a land commission to study the issue of
land in New Mexico.
The Irony of Demographics
Chris Cameron, a professor at Southwestern School of Law, says that part of
the reason much of the land was lost is that Article 10 of the treaty was
taken out by the U.S. Senate. And although the spirit of that article was
reintroduced into a later agreement, the Protocol of Queretaro, it was not
binding on U.S. courts.
That spirit, according to Cameron, was to see that the Spanish and Mexican
communal and private land grants were respected and that disputes regarding
such land were to be adjudicated according to Spanish and Mexican common law.
By rejecting Article 10, "The United States completely shifted the burden of
proof, from the land owners to the squatters and from the land grant heirs to
the U.S. government."
The great irony, says Cameron, is that the treaty will eventually be fulfilled
as a result of demographics and time.
"Mexicans and other Latinos are buying the land back [in California and other
parts of the Southwest]," Cameron says. "The future is a brown future."
Not only is the issue of land grants very much alive because of the treaty's
viability, but the issue is important because it is tied to the issue of
poverty. Luna's studies have established a direct correlation between land
loss and poverty.
"That's why we're farm workers and not farmers," she says.
The issue remains alive because of the possibility -- however remote -- that
land grant heirs may get their lands back. if that happens, Luna says, there
is a high probability that they would be able to climb out of poverty.
Cameron concludes that legal scholars examining the treaty will help fill in
the gaps that the historians have been unable to complete.
"Historians have a great ability to tell stories. This will give legal
scholars the opportunity to do the same, " says Cameron.
COPYRIGHT 1998 Cox, Matthews & Associates
