Comparing illegal aliens and Mormon pioneers

[MrShorty]

@anatess2: I'm not sure what you mean by Texas was not Mexico. Everything I read says that Texas was part of Mexico until 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico. I could see Texans employing some rhetorical devices to claim that the Mexican government was not legitimate, but clearly the Texas war of independence was fought between Santa Anna's Mexican government and Texas's militias.

Clearly there is a lot of political turmoil and unrest in Mexico and western North America at this time. Mexico's government had changed frequently and substantially between 1820 and 1840. From the outside looking in -- especially at Mexico's inability to defend its borders to the north -- it might be easy to say that we can pick and choose which laws were actually valid and enforceable. It still seems to me that it is a lot more complex than simply "Mormon immigrants were clearly illegal" or "Mormon immigrants were clearly within the laws of the time".

[Guest Scott]

57 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.

I'm just asking rather than trying to debate the above, because you have me a little confused.

The Salt Lake Valley was part of Alta California rather than Texas.  It is true that the main concern behind the 1830 law was to curb immigration into Texas, which Mexico claimed, but it was also appicable to Alta California.

Since Utah was part of Alta California and not Texas, why would the succession of Texas render the Utah region ungoverned and in dispute?  

As said, I'm just confused as to what you are getting at and wanted some clarification.  

 

[Guest Scott]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

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.  

Alta California was part of Mexico.   All historic maps say this.  At the time, the determination between a state and territory in Mexico was population.  The territories were part of Mexico. 

Here is a map of Mexico dating to 1847::

 

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

Scott, I guess the notion I have, that you seem to not have, is that stuff wasn't settled back in the day.  Nations were vying for things, and just because one nation considered something "theirs" didn't make it so.  So yes, Mexico thought of it as Mexico, and yes, maps called it either Mexico or the Mexican territories, but it was hardly settled. 

"We're gonna go settle in Mexico" - said lots of people in the 1800's
"You can't, we claim that land and you're not Mexicans" - said the people running Mexico
"We can't - we're not Mexicans!" - said nobody, ever, back in the 1800's. 

Humans disagreeing with each other over who gets what bit of ground makes up quite a bit of our history, and no small amount of our reasons for killing each other. 

Again, different state of affairs than Venezuelan refugees wanting into the US in the 21st century.  

 

[Guest Scott]

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Scott, I guess the notion I have, that you seem to not have, is that stuff wasn't settled back in the day.  Nations were vying for things, and just because one nation considered something "theirs" didn't make it so.  So yes, Mexico thought of it as Mexico, and yes, maps called it either Mexico or the Mexican territories, but it was hardly settled. 

The thing is everyone, save the native Americans recognized the Salt Lake Valley as being part of Mexico in 1847.   This includes Mexico, the United States, our Church, etc.  

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

The thing is everyone, save the native Americans recognized the Salt Lake Valley as being part of Mexico in 1847.   This includes Mexico, the United States, our Church, etc.  

Just so.  And then a bunch of people moved in, who had more allegiance to their own government/culture of origin than to the government and culture of the nation-state that claimed sovereignty over the territory to which they had moved.

I’ll just pop this in my “what-could-possibly-go-wrong?” file.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

The thing is everyone, save the native Americans recognized the Salt Lake Valley as being part of Mexico in 1847.   This includes Mexico, the United States, our Church, etc.  

Ok.  I get it.  Our disagreement remains about how it was "illegal for the pioneers to immigrate".   Do you understand how such a statement is so misleading, so lacking in context, so ignoring of relevant facts, as it might as well be wrong, given the realities of the time?

Edited July 26, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Guest Scott]

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you understand how such a statement is so misleading, so lacking in context, so ignoring of relevant facts, as it might as well be wrong, given the realities of the time?

Nope.  It was illegal by the laws of men, plain and simple.  Obviously Mexico didn't do anything about the immigration, but it was still illegal (by the laws of men at least).   Why rationalize it?  History is history and can't be changed.

In the early days of the Church, members did a lot of things that were illegal by the laws of men, such as polygamy.  It seems like a lot of us just want to forget or rationalize it.  Yet it was illegal, it still happened, and it's part of our history.  That will never change.

Speaking of which, of interest, 1847 isn't the only time church members fled to Mexico.  We did it in Mexico in 1885 to flee the polygamy laws in the United States.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Scott

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

First of all, the first Pioneers migrated to Mexico (Salt Lake Valley), not the United States and immigration during the war was illegal.

So the settlers in Texas from the USA were illegal (including treason) and started an immoral war contrary to USA law and thus criminals both to the USA and Mexico?  This is taught in Mexican schools but I was unaware it was considered history in the USA.

 

The Traveler

[Texan]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

So the settlers in Texas from the USA were illegal (including treason) and started an immoral war contrary to USA law and thus criminals both to the USA and Mexico?  This is taught in Mexican schools but I was unaware it was considered history in the USA.

It's not in the history I learned.  I was taught that Mexico encouraged immigration into Texas from areas outside Mexico and Spain, at least initially.  Land grants were made to these settlers.  In fact, the word "Grant" still occurs in a few place names in my part of East Texas, and it has even influenced the naming of a few streets here.  Those immigrants were not always nice people, and they broke many laws of Mexico (e.g., keeping slaves).  The moral dimensions of the Texas Revolution can be argued at length, but I don't see how the Revolution could be deemed illegal under U.S. law because at that time the U.S. stopped at the Sabine River (which is now the Texas-Louisiana state line), and Texas became an independent republic after that, not a U.S. state.  Comparing these things to other migrations and pioneer movements might be interesting, but I wonder if we're starting to get into apples and oranges here.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you understand how such a statement is so misleading, so lacking in context, so ignoring of relevant facts, as it might as well be wrong, given the realities of the time?

Nope.  It was illegal by the laws of men, plain and simple.  Obviously Mexico didn't do anything about the immigration, but it was still illegal (by the laws of men at least). 

I suppose other than fighting a war over the issue, where maybe 10k - 30k people died, I suppose they didn't do much of anything about it.   (I'm trying for sarcasm without being too insulting here - let me know if I've gone overboard.)

Hey @Queolby, you got two wildly divergent opinions on the issue.  It's good to have choices.

 

[Traveler]

While we are on this topic - we learn from the Book of Mormon that those that come to this land will be brought by the L-rd.  That this land will be for those that serve G-d.  So the question is - Why then, is there a problem with illegal immigration?  Is it possible that all the discussion concerning illegal border crossings is a distraction because the hearts of this nation is being turned away from G-d?

 

The Traveler

[Texan]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

While we are on this topic - we learn from the Book of Mormon that those that come to this land will be brought by the L-rd.  That this land will be for those that serve G-d.  So the question is - Why then, is there a problem with illegal immigration?  Is it possible that all the discussion concerning illegal border crossings is a distraction because the hearts of this nation is being turned away from G-d?

Splendid question, but I'd say no to the 2nd one.

1. We cannot have open borders and a welfare state.  Pick one or the other.  If you pick both, in 20 years the only illegal immigration will be from the U.S. to other countries.

2. I think it's despicable to use humans as pawns to increase political power.  If the unauthorized immigrants were conservative and raised U.S.-born children who voted Republican, you'd see Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and all 24 Democratic candidates down at the border laying bricks with both hands and their teeth.

3. I also think anyone who wants to become a U.S. citizen should be allowed to (minus criminals, maybe), but they should get in line and flow through the pipeline we have set up to ensure orderly immigration that doesn't damage the U.S. citizens already here.  So I view it more as a problem with line jumping, not illegal immigration. 

[mrmarklin]

11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Mormon pioneers were not breaking any laws, going anywhere illegally, settling anywhere illegally.

(I can say that, because the impacted Native American tribes didn't have any such system of laws, or even know what hit them until it was too late.  But that's not an LDS-specific thing, nor does it really have much in common with our modern definitions of nations, which include borders and systems of immigration.)

Uh, present day Utah was Mexican property in 1847. We were at war with Mexico and stole it from them soon after the pioneers arrived. 

[estradling75]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just so.  And then a bunch of people moved in, who had more allegiance to their own government/culture of origin than to the government and culture of the nation-state that claimed sovereignty over the territory to which they had moved.

I’ll just pop this in my “what-could-possibly-go-wrong?” file.

Indeed... Some people are so instant on proving the idea that the pioneers were 'illegal' that they do not seem to realize that even if they 'win' that battle it costs them the war.

Ok so lets call the pioneers 'illegal' that puts the USA in the role of the Indians and Mexico.  History shows us that if we do not push back hard, strong and constantly we will have our land taken from us.  How is that suppose to make me OK with allowing 'illegal' immigration?   If I have more then two brain cells and a basic grasp of history it is clearly not something to be OK with.

 

[mordorbund]

Here's a summation from a Church history source:

Quote

As Wilford and Phebe prepared to return to Nauvoo, Samuel Brannan, the presiding elder of the Church in New York City, heard a rumor that the United States government would rather disarm and exterminate the Saints than allow them to leave the country and possibly align with Mexico or Great Britain, two nations that claimed vast regions in the West. Alarmed, Sam wrote to Brigham Young immediately to report the danger.

Sam’s letter reached Nauvoo amid new perils. Brigham and other apostles had been served with legal writs falsely charging them with counterfeiting, and now lawmen were seeking to arrest them.¹² After reading Sam’s letter, the apostles prayed for protection, asking the Lord to lead the Saints safely out of the city.¹³

A short time later, Governor Thomas Ford of Illinois seemed to confirm Sam’s report. “It is very likely that the government at Washington, DC, will interfere to prevent the Mormons from going west of the Rocky Mountains,” he warned. “Many intelligent persons sincerely believe that they will join the British if they go there and be more trouble than ever.”¹⁴

In January 1846, Brigham met often with the Quorum of the Twelve and the Council of Fifty, an organization that oversaw the temporal concerns of God’s kingdom on earth, to plan the best and quickest way to evacuate Nauvoo and establish a new gathering place for the Saints. Heber Kimball, his fellow apostle, recommended that they lead a small company of Saints west as soon as possible.

“Gather up a company who can fit themselves out,” he advised, “to be ready at any moment when called upon to go forth and prepare a place for their families and the poor.”

“If there is an advance company to go and put in crops this spring,” apostle Orson Pratt pointed out, “it will be necessary to start by the first of February.” He wondered if it would be wiser to settle somewhere closer, which would allow them to plant crops sooner.

Brigham disliked that idea. The Lord had already directed the Saints to settle near the Great Salt Lake. The lake was part of the Great Basin, a massive bowl-shaped region surrounded by mountains. Much of the basin was dry desert land and a challenge to cultivate, making it undesirable for many Americans moving west.

“If we go between the mountains to the place under consideration,” Brigham reasoned, “there will be no jealousies from any nation.” Brigham understood that the region was already inhabited by Native peoples. Yet he was hopeful that the Saints would be able to settle peacefully among them.¹⁵

Over the years, the Saints had tried to share the gospel with American Indians in the United States, and they planned to do the same with the Native peoples of the West. Like most white people in the United States, many white Saints saw their culture as superior to that of the Indians and knew little about their languages and customs. But they also viewed Indians as fellow members of the house of Israel and potential allies, and they hoped to forge friendships with the Utes, Shoshones, and other western tribes.¹⁶

 

[mordorbund]

More fun quotes from History of the Church vol. 7:

Quote

I would suggest a matter in confidence. California now offers a field for the prettiest enterprise that has been undertaken in modern time. It is but sparsely inhabited and by none but the Indian or imbecile Mexican Spaniard. I have not inquired enough to know how strong it is in men and means. But this we know that if conquered from Mexico that country is so physically weak and morally distracted that she could never send a force there to conquer it. Why would it not be a pretty operation for your people to go out there, take possession of and conquer a portion of the vacant country, and establish an independent government of your own subject only to the laws of nations. [B.H. Roberts edits to add '?'] You would remain there a long time before you would be disturbed by the proximity of other settlements. If you conclude to do this your design ought not to be known or otherwise it would become the duty of the United States to prevent your emigration. But if you once cross the line of the United States territories you would be in no danger of being interfered with.

-Governor Thomas Ford, April 8, 1845

Quote

Or, will you favor us by your personal influence and your official rank? Or, will you express our views concerning what is called the "Great Western Measure" of colonizing the Latter-day Saints in Oregon, the northwestern territory, or some location remote from the states, where the hand of oppression will not crush every noble principle and extinguish every patriotic feeling?

-Quorum of the 12 to President Polk, April 24, 1845

Quote

I asked the gentlemen present as to their feelings as friends and neighbors, and in relation to our propositions for removal.

General Hardin said he would do all in his power by counsel, etc., to help us, and approved of our proposed location at Vancouver's Island. He thought it desirable for our sakes that we should remove, also for the peace of the county.

Judge Douglas said Vauncouver's Island was claimed by the United States, and he felt sure there would be no objections to its settlement, or to the settlement of Oregon.

-Brigham Young's journal, October 1, 1845

Here is a letter written by "Backwoodsman" stating that the western portions of southern California were already getting settled as a sort of "United States of the West" and proposing that the Saints live in the eastern portion separate and apart. Brigham reads in it "a desire to make us a barrier between them and the Mexican government".

Quote

Should hostilities arise between the government of the United States and any other power, in relation to the rights of possessing the territory of Oregon, we are on hand to sustain the claims of the United States' government to that country. It is geographically ours; and of right, no foreign power should hold dominion over there; and if our services are required to prevent it, those services will be cheerfully rendered according to our ability.

-Church High Council, January 20th, 1846

They acknowledge that where they are headed is "beyond the jurisdiction of the states" and they are fleeing the United States. The first link also includes a contract claiming that the land is up for grabs.

For the Mormon Battalion section, Roberts summarizes that Jesse Little was sent to D.C "and if possible secure the assignment for the Saints in assisting the general government to settle California in anticipation of a conquest of that country by the United States then entering upon a war with Mexico."

For more on the speculation regarding the fate of California and Oregon, it's worth reading an 1844 letter from Orson Hyde.

[Guest Mores]

10 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Uh, present day Utah was Mexican property in 1847. We were at war with Mexico and stole it from them soon after the pioneers arrived. 

Yes.  And imperialism was still part of life in the 1800s.  So, what's your point?

What does imperialism mean in this particular situation?  It means that we crossed a border with the intent to conquer/invade.  We won.

To compare the illegal immigrant today with the pioneers is to admit that they're coming here to conquer and invade.  Do you really want to take that position?  Because I'd agree with that.

[Guest Mores]

5 hours ago, mordorbund said:

More fun quotes from History of the Church vol. 7:

Here is a letter written by "Backwoodsman" stating that the western portions of southern California were already getting settled as a sort of "United States of the West" and proposing that the Saints live in the eastern portion separate and apart. Brigham reads in it "a desire to make us a barrier between them and the Mexican government".

They acknowledge that where they are headed is "beyond the jurisdiction of the states" and they are fleeing the United States. The first link also includes a contract claiming that the land is up for grabs.

For the Mormon Battalion section, Roberts summarizes that Jesse Little was sent to D.C "and if possible secure the assignment for the Saints in assisting the general government to settle California in anticipation of a conquest of that country by the United States then entering upon a war with Mexico."

For more on the speculation regarding the fate of California and Oregon, it's worth reading an 1844 letter from Orson Hyde.

@Scott,

This is exactly why I asked for a source.  The actual words written by those who were there are better than your vague memory of what you read years ago.  Now we see that your earlier claims were completely false.

You have to recognize that any movement of a large body of citizens from one country into the boundaries of another constitutes an invasion.  That was indeed the intent of the Pioneers.  Do you now understand that today's illegal immigrants are also here to conquer and invade?  You're the one hoping to make the comparison.  Well, you've made your bed.  Now lie in it.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Mores

[Guest Mores]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

While we are on this topic - we learn from the Book of Mormon that those that come to this land will be brought by the L-rd.  That this land will be for those that serve G-d.  So the question is - Why then, is there a problem with illegal immigration?  Is it possible that all the discussion concerning illegal border crossings is a distraction because the hearts of this nation is being turned away from G-d?

You're referring to the following passage:

Quote

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

2 Ne 1:5-9

Context is important.

• Where was Lehi when he declared "this land" was the land of promise?  Was it the United States?  Do you subscribe to the heartland model?
• How does the geography of Lehi's day inform us about the application of the prophecy to today's national boundaries?
• What time period was this prophecy applicable to?  Was it for all time?  or was it simply until the Lord opened up the New World to the Old World?

If you believe in the heartland model, then you have a credible claim to applying this prophecy to the US and it would be plausible to apply it to immigration to the US.  Are you prepared to make that claim?  If so, consider the rest of the passage.

Even if you do accept the heartland model, then are you prepared to say that the prophecy was about the United States above any other nation in the Americas -- modern day?  If so, then you also need to accept that the United States has laws that need to be followed.  Understanding that, how would you apply verse 8 (many nations would overrun the land)?

Now, for both time and place, I'd ask you to look at verse 9 "... those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem..."  Combine that with all of verse 8.  It seems clear to me that the proper interpretation and application would be to believe that the prophecy applied to the Americas in general, specifically regarding those from Jerusalem (hinting at the Mulekites) and that the time frame was only until the Americas were no longer hidden from other nations.

Go ahead and expand on your interpretation to address the full context of the passage and see if it fits the whole passage rather than just a single phrase.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Mores

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Scott said:

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.

17 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm just asking rather than trying to debate the above, because you have me a little confused.

The Salt Lake Valley was part of Alta California rather than Texas.  It is true that the main concern behind the 1830 law was to curb immigration into Texas, which Mexico claimed, but it was also appicable to Alta California.

Since Utah was part of Alta California and not Texas, why would the succession of Texas render the Utah region ungoverned and in dispute?  

As said, I'm just confused as to what you are getting at and wanted some clarification.  

 

I think where you and I have a difference in understanding is the historical concept of colonial borders.  There are two kinds of ownership - Settled ownership and Geographical ownership.  Settled ownership is when a Spanish conquistador (usually accompanied by a Catholic missionary) takes a region for the Spanish crown and settles in it.  The settlers, then, start developing the land and any increase gets taxed for the Royalty and the Catholic Church.  The settled region is then defended by the Spanish militia usually through the construction of a fort.  The borders of this region is then determined by how far the Spanish militia can defend the region.  A geographical claim is simply pointing to a map beyond defensible borders and saying, that land is ours.  A geographical claim is like paper money - it has no meaning unless you can back it up with your army.  Therefore, any geographical claim by any colonizer in the Colonial Era, in today's definition of National Borders, is tantamount to a non-Country.  Present equivalent would be the Gaza strip.

The claim of ownership of land by Spain of most of Alta California and more specifically Utah, is a geographical map of ownership.  It remained unchallenged because they, as yet, have not need to defend it.  Compare that to Colorado that is part of Alta California and geographically claimed by Spain.  Spanish settlers tried to establish a colony in what is now known as Pueblo Colorado but the settlement failed.  At the same time, the region was geographically claimed by the French causing an ownership dispute as yet undefended and unchallenged.  But then France sold the claim to the US in 1803 as part of the Louisiana Purchase which caused the border dispute of the Colorado region between Spain and the US instead of Spain and France.  The "paper money" of Spain/Mexico's geographical claim of Colorado was exposed when it was proven through the war that they can't defend that claim.  

Texas had no established western border in the same manner that Mexico had no established northern border as Alta California was geographical claimed by Spain and not part of the governance of Mexico nor was it part of the governance of Texas.  So when Spain left the region, the parts of Alta California that had no governance became a question of whether it is within the geographical claim of the northern Mexican border or western Texas border. 

How this ties to the present-day definition of Illegal Immigration - settlers to a geographical claim has ZERO at all in common with illegal immigrants since in the Colonial Era, the concept of colonization is - if you settle in the land and can successfully defend it, you own it.

How I'm familiar with this concept - I'm Filipino and the Philippines was once claimed by Spain.  The southern region of the Philippines (Mindanao) has been claimed by Islamic tribes and, therefore, was only a geographical claim by the Spanish as they refused to cede governance to the Spanish conquistadors.  The Spanish/American war ended up with Spain selling the Philippines to the US.  US then claimed Mindanao.  But this time, they can defend that claim with their militia which is why Mindanao remained part of the map of the Philippines.  But, UNTIL TODAY, Islamic people of Mindanao still continue to fight the "usurpation of their lands" which is the main reason that area remains a hotbed of Islamic terrorism.  The Philippine government has proved more than capable of defending the land so it remains part of the Philippines all the way through to the creation of the UN which basically ended the Colonial Era.  There is no question at all whether non-Muslim Filipinos are tantamount to "illegal immigrants" in Mindanao.

Edited July 26, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

@Scott,

This is exactly why I asked for a source.  The actual words written by those who were there are better than your vague memory of what you read years ago. 

I agree.    The sources are excellent.  I'm glad they were able to be found.

Quote

Now we see that your earlier claims were completely false.

No you don't.   

The only statement I made that is not yet supported the links above is the one about the army trying to prevent the Saints from leaving, but as I promised that will be provided soon.  I said it would take me time; not that I wouldn't provide it.

All the links back up and support what I said. 

The above proves that the immigration was illegal and that they were fleeing the United States.   No permission was given from the county invaded.    You acknowlege that the migration constitutes as an invasion of another country and it has been pointed out that as per that country's law the invasion was illegal.   You can't twist it any other way than that (unless you have another source saying that the migration was legal under Mexican laws).

Prove using any source that the invasion of the other country was legal under that country's laws.   It was not, but I'll give you a chance to prove it.   And don't say that the country in question had no immigration laws, because it has already been pointed out (with sources) that it did.

You also previously acknowleged that there was a specific edict of the time due to a state of war.  Edict was the word you used.

Here is the definition of edict as stated in the Marriam Webster Dictionary:

Even if you were to ingore the Mexican laws pointed out, by what rationalization is disobeying an edict in a time of war legal?   

Quote

You have to recognize that any movement of a large body of citizens from one country into the boundaries of another constitutes an invasion.  That was indeed the intent of the Pioneers.

Agreed.   They came here to build a nation using part of an existing nation that they didn't think would anything about it because the land was thought of as barren wastelant.  

Quote

You're the one hoping to make the comparison.  

I made no such comparison.   My claim is that the immigration (or conquest, invasion, or whatever you want to call it) was illegal by the laws of men.   It was.  You have not shown otherwise.   You also have not addressed the issue of the law of April 6, 1830.   Anatess has made an attempt (which I can see much of her point), but you have not tried to address it.  

Also, just because the immigration was illegal under the laws of men, doesn't mean I don't think the Saints should have come to the Salt Lake Valley.   Brigham Young and others were right that the Mexican government would not interfere (if they were even aware of it), but lack of interference is not the same as legality.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@anatess2: I'm not sure what you mean by Texas was not Mexico. Everything I read says that Texas was part of Mexico until 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico. I could see Texans employing some rhetorical devices to claim that the Mexican government was not legitimate, but clearly the Texas war of independence was fought between Santa Anna's Mexican government and Texas's militias.

Clearly there is a lot of political turmoil and unrest in Mexico and western North America at this time. Mexico's government had changed frequently and substantially between 1820 and 1840. From the outside looking in -- especially at Mexico's inability to defend its borders to the north -- it might be easy to say that we can pick and choose which laws were actually valid and enforceable. It still seems to me that it is a lot more complex than simply "Mormon immigrants were clearly illegal" or "Mormon immigrants were clearly within the laws of the time".

Okay, first, it would be great if you can read my post to Scott above because much of the Colonial concept is laid out there. 

North central America and south North America which includes Mexico was settled, governed, and defended by Spain.

5,000 feet bird's eye view of the history of the Texas region - in the 1600's Texas (and Louisiana) was settled by the French but the French settlements in Texas together with their fort failed and, therefore, Spanish missionaries under the viceroy of New Spain tried to claim the land for themselves.  1700's Texas was a mishmash of failures between French and Spanish settlements in the region conquering each other plus the skirmishes with the Native Americans until the Native Americans and the Spanish settlers joined together to drive out the french in the late 1700's.  Spain sold Louisiana back to the French and kept Texas at the end of the century and France sold Louisiana to the US not long thereafter.  But, as geographical borders at this time is really vague when it comes to indefensible regions, the US considered Texas part of the Louisiana purchase and, therefore, the region had 2 geographical claims of ownership.  By this time, Napoleon Bonaparte has successfully overthrown the Spanish monarchy in Spain so Spain couldn't defend New Spain.  Mexico (the seat of the viceroy of New Spain) worked with the US to successfully secede Mexico and Texas from Spain.  After the successful secession, Mexico claimed the Spanish settlements in Texas as part of Mexico but the US said... nuh uh.

There's no such thing as "Settlements were clearly illegal" in the Colonial Era.  The concept of the Colonial Era is that if you can settle in the land, successfully develop it and defend it, it's yours regardless of geographical claims by someone else.  Colonization is French settlers go into Spanish geographically claimed lands and successfully settle in it making the land governed and defended by France.  Illegal immigration would be - French settlers go into a Spanish settlement to be defended by Spain without Spain's consent.

Edited July 26, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The claim of ownership of land by Spain of most of Alta California and more specifically Utah, is a geographical map of ownership

Yes, I agree.

Quote

The "paper money" of Spain/Mexico's geographical claim of Colorado was exposed when it was proven through the war that they can't defend that claim.  

Well sort of.   The United States and Mexico both ackowleged that what is now Utah was part of Mexico.    Do you agree with this?

Quote

Texas had no established western border in the same manner that Mexico had no established northern border as Alta California was geographical claimed by Spain and not part of the governance of Mexico nor was it part of the governance of Texas.  So when Spain left the region, the parts of Alta California that had no governance became a question of whether it is within the geographical claim of the northern Mexican border or western Texas border. 

As far as I know, neither the United States nor Mexico had a question of who's territory what is now Utah was.

Quote

But, as geographical borders at this time is really vague when it comes to indefensible regions, the US considered Texas part of the Louisiana purchase and, therefore, the region had 2 geographical claims of ownership. 

This is true (at least for parts of Texas), but which country had geographic claims of ownership of what is now Utah in 1847?

Quote

How this ties to the present-day definition of Illegal Immigration - settlers to a geographical claim has ZERO at all in common with illegal immigrants since in the Colonial Era, the concept of colonization is - if you settle in the land and can successfully defend it, you own it.

Yes, I agree with you. Good definition.  

My only claim was that by the laws of men that the immigration was illegal.   By the laws of men, it still was so if the claim was weak and even if it wasn't defensible.   Mexico, though weak, was still a recognized country by both Mexico and the United States and it was recognized by both countries that what is now Utah was within the borders of Mexico.

As far as the Mexican-American war goes, it wasn't really what is now Utah that was disputed territory.  The disputed lands and borders were in Texas.  New Mexico and Alta California were simply the spoils of war, rather than the disputed lands.   So, the war was over the borders of Texas and the spoils were what is now Utah (and other lands).  

Mexico was also "paid" for New Mexico and Alta California.   It was the same sum used in the Lousiana Purchase.

As far as colonization goes, I agree that that is different than illegal immigrants today.  I haven't claimed otherwise.   If they are really refugees, I guess there are some valid comparisons, but most illegal immigrants aren't really refugees.  Though I support immigration, I think people that migrate here should come here legally, especially in this day and age.   I admit that do have sympathy for true refugees or children who came here through no fault of their own.  That doesn't have anything to do with what I said though.  
 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Scott

[Anddenex]

We are all illegal immigrants. Since we are all illegal immigrants we shouldn't have anything to say about present day illegal immigration.