Comparing illegal aliens and Mormon pioneers


Queolby
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Scott
2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't know much about the Mexican war, and I'd like to know more.  You're speaking authoritatively @Scott, and you sound like you've got a few brain cells to rub together.  But underlining the word "everything" does not a cited source make.   I second Mores' call for sources. 

Sure.   I'd have to dig through our Church History (which can be done, but won't be instantanious), but if you want a quicker explanation, I'd recommend listing to the Church History on CD or streaming put out by In Living Scriptures.   I think they did a really good job with the summarization and it matches the official church history really well (which is why I really recommended it as a source).   They summarize most of what I pointed out above (especially with the US military planning to prevent the Saints from leaving).   The only thing above I can think of they don't summarize are the Mexican immigration laws during the war.   The rest is summarized quite well on the CDs or streaming.   One thing interesting that some don't know about is that it was our Church that approached the US military leaders with the idea of the Mormon Battalion and not the other way around.

I don't have the streamed version, but on the CD version, the CDs you want pertaining to the above are CDs 16-18 and titled as follows:

CD 16

YOU MUST LEAVE

CROSSING THE MISSISSIPI

CD 17

WINTER QUARTERS

GREAT SALT LAKE VALLEY

CD 18

MORMON BATTALION 

OTHER ROADS WEST

Link:

https://www.livingscriptures.com/product/the-dramatized-church-history/

In the link, you want stories 31-36.

Anyway, I don't work for In Living Scriptures, so I'm not trying to sell you anything.  :)  I still think they do a job of summarizing our official and other church history.   The only flaw is that they skip some of the more controversial subjects such as the Mountain Meadown Massacre.   Obviously it also has a bias from only our Church's perspective with other topics as well, but it's still a really good source.  

Anyway, there's your instantaneous source, but I'll need some time to also provide the links to the official church history as well.   I have read the official church history and a lot of church history many times, but it used to be easier when I lived in Utah.   For anyone interested, it is available at BYU and even the University of Utah.   They even have actual scans of a lot of the old diaries and documentation.   I'd highly recommend the BYU and U of U library collection of anyone interesting in reading about our Church history.   There is so much more here than is covered in the Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society manuals, or even the Institute and Seminary Cirriculum.  

If you don't want to delve that deep, I recommend the sources above.   They are well worth the money.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
1 minute ago, Vort said:

The blunt fact is that a toothless law is worse than no law at all. If there is no public will to enforce a law, that law is worthless. My mind is not settled as to the moral ramifications of ignoring or breaking of an unenforced law. These are questions of societal structure, and while it is true that any society is generally better than none, the relative worth of various societies is not a constant. Some societies, or at least some aspects of societies, are simply better than those aspects of other societies.

I don't completely disagree with you.  But I believe there is a sliding scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Ahh yes... the guilt trip justifying ILLEGAL economic immigration.

Please show where I justified illegal economic immigration. Charity and compassion transcend political/economic solutions, and in my opinion are desirable attributes all along the way in identifying problems, coming up with grass-roots short- and long-term economic and political (fundamentally economics and politics are the same thing) fixes, and preventing future problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An internet search found a couple of Wikipedia pages (These obviously aren't the same sources that Scott is alluding to, but they should provide some reading material):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Colonization_Law
 

The general colonization law is particularly interesting. It specifically mentions US colonists in Texas as being illegally there, but that, of course, would kind of be the start of the whole Mexican/American conflict until the mid 19th century. The article talks about New Spain/Mexico's concerns with the lack of Mexican colonization of these lands and whether they should allow or encourage foreign settlement. It appears that, as they decided to allow (with restrictions) foreign settlement, the hope was that these foreigners would assimilate into Mexico. It appears that many did not. The Mormon migration occurred late in the period (in the middle of the Mexican American war). At the time, the question of legality is probably as much about who you think will win the war as what laws are technically on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
1 hour ago, Mores said:

I provided links. Can you?

See my response to Neurotypical for links to some really good sources.  

Quote

Any "illegal" aspect of Pioneer immigration to Mexico was certainly not due to legislative action.  Any executive orders or regulatory powers were non-existent when there were no laws they were addressing.

I stand open to criticism from @Just_A_Guy if my legal analysis is faulty.

In addition to the edict issued during the war, there was the Law of April 6, 1830, which supplimented the 1824 policies you are referring to:

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ngl01

So even in only legistlation is considered, the Mormon Pioneers before 1848 were still illegal immigrants.

Wiki, although not always the best source gives a good summary of the law too if you don't want to dig through the whole thing:

Law of April 6, 1830 was issued because of the Mier y Terán Report to counter concerns that Mexican Texas, part of the border state of Coahuila y Tejas was in danger of being annexed by the United States. Immigration of United States citizens, some legal, most illegal, had begun to accelerate rapidly. The law specifically banned any additional American colonists from settling in Mexican Territory (which included both California and Texas, along with the areas that would become Arizona, parts of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. It also outlawed slavery in Texas.

I'd recommend digging through the whole thing though.  Just google "Law of April 6, 1830" and there are many, many sources on the topic.   

Here are a lot of sources:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Law+of+April+6%2C+1830&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS744US744&oq=Law+of+April+6%2C+1830&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60j0l3.2367j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Take your pick.  There are plenty to choose from. ;)

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
Just now, Scott said:

See my response to Neurotypical for links to some really good sources.  

So... No.  you can't.  OK.  Thanks for answering the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott:

- Saying "I'd recommend listing to the Church History on CD",  and "you want stories 31-36", aren't sources.   Suggestion: https://www.wikihow.com/Cite-Sources

- Citing the Law of April 6, 1830, issued by Mexico, and claiming it "supplimented the 1824 policies you [Mores] are referring to", tells me you're just googling things and don't understand any more than I do.

At this point, the battle for NeuroTypical's uninformed opinion is going to Mores.  Cuz he, ya know, produced links that supported his assertion that US immigration into Utah at the time was legal.  

I can still change my mind, but it'll take more than what's being shown so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Anyway, there’s a lot of history that can be discussed here, but back to the main point, the immigration was illegal, at least from the laws of men.   The Mormon pioneers, at least before 1848 were most certainly illegal immigrants.  

This is not accurate and is what @MrShorty calls "presentism".

Mexico (part of New Spain) was a colony of Spain.  In the colonial era, the borders of Spain is basically everything that has not been successfully claimed/defended by someone else for which Spain holds a vested interest and Spain can defend.  As of the 1500's - basically anything discovered by expeditions west of Spain and Portugal is Spain's and anything to the east is Portugal's.  Wars with other colonizers, such as the British and the French, of course, roughly marked each other's territories.

The Spanish Empire was established, not only as a colonizing mission for resources (such as gold) but mainly for Catholic conversion.  Therefore, during Spanish rule of New Spain, Alta California (which encompasses the land now known as Utah) is a land that Spain considers part of Spain only by virtue of a map and not of occupation as it was as yet uncolonized except for the west coasts and no Catholic missions has been established that has successfully settled in the region.

The Treaty of Cordoba did not establish new national borders or anything of the sort.  The Texas secession from New Spain also did not establish Texan borders.  Therefore the territory between Texas and California that remained unsettled became disputed between Texas and Mexico after their successful independence from Spain.

The Mormon Pioneers in 1847 or at anytime thereafter, were neither illegal Mexican migrants nor illegal US migrants as the territory of Utah was still being fought between the US (after annexation of the state of Texas) and Mexico after the end of the Spanish colonial era in the region.  Mormon Pioneers settled in the Utah valley and claimed it as their own independent nation - neither US nor Mexico but Utah.

In any case, at the time, it was not illegal for Americans to immigrate to Mexico.  As a matter of fact, that's the genesis of the Texas secession - Mexico encouraged migration of Americans and European settlers into then-Mexico-governed Texas after they effected the Treaty of Cordoba (which the Spanish government ignored at the time) to act as a buffer between Native American raiders and Mexico.  These settlers ended up seceding from Spain on their own.  It was also not illegal for Mexicans to immigrate to the US as there was no immigration laws at the time.  There is a law for emigration - border patrol on both the Mexican and US sides prevented slaves, criminals, and soldiers from leaving their respective countries.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
2 minutes ago, Mores said:

So... No.  you can't.  OK.  Thanks for answering the question.

Here are some good sources:

https://www.livingscriptures.com/product/the-dramatized-church-history/

Also, I just provided you with a supposed 17,600,000 souces (though all of them are obviously not applicable) alluding to the Law of April 6, 1830 (interestingly also the birthdate of our Church), which makes the Mormon Pioneers illegal immigrants.   Did you need me to point out each one?  

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_April_6,_1830

file:///C:/Users/kessc/Downloads/FortTeran_article_2011.pdf

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ngl01

Yes, Texas is the main emphasis (since that's where most of the immigration was happening and the part that Mexico most feared losing), but in addition to Texas, the law also prohibited immigration into what is now California Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, as well as parts of Colorado.

Do you agree that the Law of April 6, 1830 was law and if so why doesn't that alone make the Mormon Pioneers illegal immigrants?   
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mores said:

I provided links. Can you?

Do you know what a Constitution is?

Let's look at the best parallel to today's laws.

  • Laws passed by legislative bodies (like Congress).
  • Regulations: These are standards set by the executive branch in order to give more specificity to the laws established by Congress.  And the power to declare such regulations are granted to the executive through the act of Congress that they are trying to enforce.
  • Executive orders:  Most of the time, this is simply the direction given by the executive to the rest of the branch in order to do the tasks they need to do.  But some of them are a vast change in direction on how the executive will interpret as well as give priority to the regulatory powers it has.
  • Court orders:  This is much like an executive order, but through the judicial branch rather than the executive.

A legislative act is still a law, and violation of it is still illegal whether it is enforced or not.

Any of the others must have a basis in some legislative act or else it is null and void.

Any "illegal" aspect of Pioneer immigration to Mexico was certainly not due to legislative action.  Any executive orders or regulatory powers were non-existent when there were no laws they were addressing.

I stand open to criticism from @Just_A_Guy if my legal analysis is faulty.

I really have nothing to add on the legalities, except that I wouldn’t expect a volume of Church history (even the excellent Saints) to capture all the nuances of nineteenth century emigration or immigration law, either in the US or Mexico.

To me, though, the legalities aren’t particularly relevant.  The greater question is what happens when one ethnic group (or group of groups) finds itself coexisting with, and increasingly replaced by, another ethnic group that is largely homogeneous and has an ingrained apathy (if not contempt) for self-defined culture, values, or rights of the “natives”.

Sociologically, it’s bad ju-ju.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

As a matter of fact, that's the genesis of the Texas secession - Mexico encouraged migration of Americans and European settlers into then-Mexico-governed Texas after they effected the Treaty of Cordoba (which the Spanish government ignored at the time) to act as a buffer between Native American raiders and Mexico.

Yes, but read up on the Law of April 6, 1830 which rescinded this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here are some good sources:

https://www.livingscriptures.com/product/the-dramatized-church-history/

Also, I just provided you with a supposed 17,600,000 souces (though all of them are obviously not applicable) alluding to the Law of April 6, 1830 (interestingly also the birthdate of our Church), which makes the Mormon Pioneers illegal immigrants.   Did you need me to point out each one?  

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_April_6,_1830

file:///C:/Users/kessc/Downloads/FortTeran_article_2011.pdf

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ngl01

Yes, Texas is the main emphasis (since that's where most of the immigration was happening and the part that Mexico most feared losing), but in addition to Texas, the law also prohibited immigration into what is now California Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, as well as parts of Colorado.

Do you agree that the Law of April 6, 1830 was law and if so why doesn't that alone make the Mormon Pioneers illegal immigrants?   
 

 

The law of 1830 is not a valid law as the Treaty of Cordoba was still not acknowledged by Spain and therefore, Mexico's laws between 1821 and 1836 are all under an unofficial government.

Texas and California are the ONLY emphasis as they were the only regions that had settlers.  Every land in-between the two are only geographical boundary disputes which, at the time, is only relevant for travel between the two territories.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
23 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Scott:

- Saying "I'd recommend listing to the Church History on CD",  and "you want stories 31-36", aren't sources.   Suggestion: https://www.wikihow.com/Cite-Sources

I provided the link to the Church History CDs in case you wanted to listen to them yourself.  The only ones online are illegal bootleg copies, though the first 20 topics are on youtube if you really want to (illegally) listen to them).  

I said it would take time to dig up the official church history sources, unless you know where to find them online (I don't). 

So there seem to be only a few possibilities here.

Either you think I am  wrong about what is in the Church history (I'm not) or you think that our Church history is wrong (possible, but I don't think so) about the US government preventing the Saints for leaving.   Unless you believe that the prevention of the US government pertaining to letting the Saints leave in itself was illegal on the US government's part. 

Quote

- Citing the Law of April 6, 1830, issued by Mexico, and claiming it "supplimented the 1824 policies you [Mores] are referring to", tells me you're just googling things and don't understand any more than I do.

It is true that I did google the Law of April 6, 1830 because I was only familiar with what our Church history says.

Still, even not taking in any Church history what so ever, the Law of April 6, 1830 is still applicable.   

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The law of 1830 is not a valid law as the Treaty of Cordoba was still not acknowledged by Spain and therefore, Mexico's laws between 1821 and 1836 are all under an unofficial government.

So, your arguement is that Mexico had no valid laws between 1821 and 1836?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Scott said:

So, your arguement is that Mexico had no valid laws between 1821 and 1836?

They did.  The ones established by SPAIN which included the support for American and other European settlers to Texas (New Spain).

In any case, neither the law of 1830 nor any Mexican nor American law had any hold over Mormon Pioneers who settled in the Utah territory AFTER Texas seceeded from New Spain and rendered the Utah region ungoverned and in dispute - neither Mexican nor Texan/American but Ute.  Utes, of course, don't have immigration laws.  Therefore, Mormon Pioneers are totally and completely Settlers to a non-country rather than immigrants to either Mexico or US.  Which is why they became their own State that had to be annexed to the US instead of already being a part of the US with the state of Texas.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

They did.  The ones established by SPAIN which included the support for American and other European settlers to Texas (New Spain).

So when is the birth of our nation?

Is it July 4 1776 or September 23 1783?

Are you saying that the only valid laws in the US between 1776 and 1783 were those of the British?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scott said:

So when is the birth of our nation?

Is it July 4 1776 or September 23 1783?

Are you saying that the only valid laws in the US between 1776 and 1783 were those of the British?  

Your nation was born on July 4 1776 with only THIRTEEN STATES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The law of 1830 is not a valid law as the Treaty of Cordoba was still not acknowledged by Spain and therefore, Mexico's laws between 1821 and 1836 are all under an unofficial government.

I would note that, according to the US State Department, the US recognized Mexico's independent government in 1822: https://history.state.gov/countries/mexico I am certainly no expert on what needed to happen in the 18th and 19th centuries before a nation who had declared independence could actually be considered a legitimate government. It seems overly simplistic to me to claim that anything the Mexican government in the 15 years between the signing of the Treaty of Cordoba and Spain's acceptance of the treaty was invalid. by 1830, the US government had recognized Mexico's government for 8 years. To then claim that US citizens could simply ignore an anti-immigration law passed by that government because Spain had not yet recognized the Mexican government seems hard to swallow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Your nation was born on July 4 1776 with only THIRTEEN STATES.

OK, but how is that applicable to the question?

Britain didn't recognize US Independence until 1783.   We declared our independence in 1776.   So, who's laws were applicable between those two dates?   Only those of the British?    

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would note that, according to the US State Department, the US recognized Mexico's independent government in 1822: https://history.state.gov/countries/mexico I am certainly no expert on what needed to happen in the 18th and 19th centuries before a nation who had declared independence could actually be considered a legitimate government. It seems overly simplistic to me to claim that anything the Mexican government in the 15 years between the signing of the Treaty of Cordoba and Spain's acceptance of the treaty was invalid. by 1830, the US government had recognized Mexico's government for 8 years. To then claim that US citizens could simply ignore an anti-immigration law passed by that government because Spain had not yet recognized the Mexican government seems hard to swallow.

TEXAS was not Mexico - nor was it the US in 1830.  It, for sure, did not acknowledge Mexico as an independent government of New Spain as Texas seceeded from Spain and not from Mexico.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

OK, but how is that applicable to the question?

Britain didn't recognize US Independence until 1783.   We declared our independence in 1776.   So, who's laws were applicable between those two dates?   Only those of the British?    

The 13 States held their laws as valid.  Any of the other colonies did not have to acknowledge those States' Laws as valid vis-a-vis the British law.

 

And I edited that post to add this:

33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In any case, neither the law of 1830 nor any Mexican nor American law had any hold over Mormon Pioneers who settled in the Utah territory AFTER Texas seceeded from New Spain and rendered the Utah region ungoverned and in dispute - neither Mexican nor Texan/American but Ute.  Utes, of course, don't have immigration laws.  Therefore, Mormon Pioneers are totally and completely Settlers to a non-country rather than immigrants to either Mexico or US.  Which is why they became their own State that had to be annexed to the US instead of already being a part of the US with the state of Texas.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The 13 States held their laws as valid.  Any of the other colonies did not have to acknowledge those States' Laws as valid vis-a-vis the British law.

Quote

 Therefore, Mormon Pioneers are totally and completely Settlers to a non-country rather than immigrants to either Mexico or US. 


OK, but getting back to the topic, all historians and historical sources I know of consider the Salt Lake Valley to be part of Mexico in 1847 (when the first of the Mormon Pioneers arrived), rather than a "non-country".  The United States also considered it to be part of Mexico (which is why they tried to prevent the immigration).  So did our Church leaders (otherwise, other than money, why did they agree to the Mormon Battalion?).

Also, why did Brigham Young threaten the US president saying that if the US government didn't allow the immigration than the Church would be willing to accept assistance from rival governments (i.e. Mexico)?  

Also, even today, all church sources I know of say that the Salt Lake Valley was part of Mexico at the time.

See here on our own church website:

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/historic-sites/journey-of-the-mormon-battalion?lang=eng&groupid=17629777354887816339-eng

At the time, Alta California was Mexican territory and encompassed some 600,000 square miles, including present-day California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado, and southwestern Wyoming.

At that time, the United States was engaged in the Mexican-American War, a battle for land that was then Mexican territory. 


Also here, same link, this might be interesting to some:

At first, many Mormons were hesitant to march with the army. They wanted to stay with their families, and they felt no loyalty to the United States government. After all, they were about to turn their backs on the United States, partly because they felt that government leaders had turned their backs when the Saints had needed protection and support.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Scott:

- Saying "I'd recommend listing to the Church History on CD",  and "you want stories 31-36", aren't sources.   Suggestion: https://www.wikihow.com/Cite-Sources

Fair enough, but here's what I can do.  I have to do a long drive tomorrow and will listen to the CDs.  When I get to the portions appicable to what I said, I will stop and make some recordings on the phone, which I can post here (for citation/review purposes as to not violate any copyright laws).  

Is that fair?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, as you and I learn together, please consider the difference between being part of Mexico, and being a Mexican territory.    They're different things.  Your cited sources say the latter, you say the former.  

By way of analogy, the pioneers settling Mexico is more analogous to a group of Canadians flying to the Moon and setting up shop 10 kilometers away from where we planted the US flag.   And less analogous to modern Venezuelan refugees trying to get into the US.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share