Comparing illegal aliens and Mormon pioneers

[anatess2]

39 minutes ago, Scott said:

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

Mexico as part of the geographical claim of New Spain whose seat of governance is in Mexico.  By the way, the Philippines is also part of New Spain and was under the viceroy seated in Mexico.  So you can also say that the Philippines was part of Mexico.  But Mexican independence efforts did not include the Philippines, therefore, the Treaty of Cordoba left the Philippines directly under governance of Cadiz rather than Mexico.

 

Quote

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

If there was no question, they wouldn't have a war over it.

 

Quote

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.

Copy-pasted from my response to MrShorty: 

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 (or Conquest) 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.

 

Quote

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.

Vague.  "Borders" is a malleable concept in the Colonial Era.  A purchase is simply settling a geographical claim by manner of money in lieu of war as war also costs money.  Utah being spoils of war versus Texas being real war doesn't make sense.  Everything you win in a war is the spoils of war.  Texas is just as much "spoils of war" as Utah.

 

Quote

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.  I think people that migrate here should come here legally in this day and age.   That doesn't have anything to do with what I said though.  

Not only is it different, it is incomparable including refugees.  See above.

Edited July 26, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

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

 

Speak for yourself.  I have an ID card to prove it.  What about you? 

 

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Speak for yourself.  I have an ID card to prove it.  What about you? 

 

My mom and dad.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

My mom and dad.

Do they have ID cards? 

 

[anatess2]

@Scott, P.S. on the matter of refugees.

Refugees and illegal immigrants when it comes to the southern US border can be one and the same for the following reasons:

1.) UN International law states that refugees are to seek refuge in the first safe country they get to - that includes Mexico.  Therefore, refugees going through Mexico to get to the US border as refugees (asylees) are illegal immigrants by international law.  Of course, the US Constitution supersedes international law within US borders, so...

2.) US law considers asylees entering the southern US border anywhere besides the 330 legal ports of entry as illegal immigrants.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

50 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If there was no question, they wouldn't have a war over it.

The Salt Lake Valley isn't what they went to war over.  It was over the borders of Texas.

If it were only Utah that were disputed, I don't think either country would have went to war over it (though I could be wrong-people fight over Afghanistan). 

Anyway, let's keep it simple.   If at the time there were a claim on what is now Utah by both countries, I would agree with you.   Are you aware of any claim by the United States prior to 1848 that what is now Utah was US territory?   As far as I know, no claim exist.

Perhaps I can summarize everything as follows:

What is now Utah was within the borders of Mexico.  Except for the Mormon Pioneers, no one seemed to care.  Other than perhaps a possible buffer zone, Mexico didn't seem to do much in Utah or care much about it.   By the laws of men, technically it was illegal for the Mormon pioneers to immigrate to the area, but they (rightfully it seems) thought that no one except for native Americans and a few trappers wanted the land so it was ripe for the taking.   The land was only part of Mexico for a few months.  

I think it is also important to point out that they indeed did come to this region to build a nation.  It didn't work quite like they envisioned (an isolated nation free from the influence of the outside world and where they could build Zion unmolested), but it was one of the most successful colonization projects ever to have existed.

It is also important to point out that they envisioned something much greater than the settlement of what is now Utah and surrounding areas.   As soon as the Mexican American war ended, the plan was to have a state (the State of Deseret) that stretched from the Rocky Mountains to even parts of the Pacific Ocean.   There was to be a string of towns along what is I-15 from the Wasatch Front/Salt Lake City all the way to the Pacific Ocean, where Los Angeles was to be the port city.  The Mormon Pioneers also established towns such as San Bernadino California and Las Vegas.  At the time it was thought that the proposed State of Deseret would be Zion and where the world would gather until the millenium, but now the Church has spread throughout much of the world and in many other countries where the people gather in their own countries to worship.   Still, the colonization of the Rocky Mountain region was one of the greatest colonization projects ever in American history.  

Anyway, I think some are misinterpeting my reasoning for pointing out that the immigration was illegal by the laws of men.   This isn't to support today's illegal immigration, but to point out that sometimes our Church did do some things that they may have been a law against for various purposes.

As mentioned, polygamy is another example.  It was against the laws of men, but we did it anyway for other purposes, at least  some of which we still might not be aware of.

So what would have happened if the Mormon pioneers didn't migrate to the Salt Lake Valley?   Could the church survive in another place at that point in history?   I don't know, but there is a reason that we were commanded to go there.   Where else could the Saints have gone?    Montana maybe?   What is now Washington and Oregon probably wouldn't have worked out.  As mentioned, Texas and Minnesota were also proposed.   Sam Brannan wanted the Saints to migrate to what is now San Francisco.    Texas could have turned out to be a disaster and the Saints could have ended up in the middle of the war.  Minnesota might have turned out like Nauvoo.   San Francisco seemed like the idea place for many since it was considered a lot more inhabitable than the Great Basin, but in 1849 the gold rush started.   I don't think the Church would have thrived in such an area.  So, Utah was the right place at the time.  This was so even if it was technically against the laws of men.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Scott said:

The Salt Lake Valley isn't what they went to war over.  It was over the borders of Texas.

If it were only Utah that were disputed, I don't think either country would have went to war over it (though I could be wrong-people fight over Afghanistan). 

Anyway, let's keep it simple.   If at the time there were a claim on what is now Utah by both countries, I would agree with you.   Are you aware of any claim by the United States prior to 1848 that what is now Utah was US territory?   As far as I know, no claim exist.

Perhaps I can summarize everything as follows:

What is now Utah was within the borders of Mexico.  Except for the Mormon Pioneers, no one seemed to care.  Other than perhaps a possible buffer zone, Mexico didn't seem to do much in Utah or care much about it.   By the laws of men, technically it was illegal for the Mormon pioneers to immigrate to the area, but they (rightfully it seems) thought that no one except for native Americans and a few trappers wanted the land so it was ripe for the taking.   The land was only part of Mexico for a few months.  

Okay, I'll agree to your premise to keep it simple.  The bolded is still incorrect.

I believe the confusion is easily alleviated by pointing out the difference between MIGRANTS and IMMIGRANTS.

Because settlers to an unsettled geographical claim in the Colonial Era are not immigrants.  They are migrants.  More specifically, they are Conquerors or Colonists (as you so aptly point out in the rest of the post that I excluded in the quote to keep things simple).  So if you're going to call them immigrants such that they can be legal or illegal, then you can just throw the entire Colonial concept as "illegal immigration" which makes New Spain illegal immigrants of the Aztec Empire... which, of course, under the context of this entire conversation, doesn't make sense.

Because, like I said - immigrants are those who immigrate into a country (be part of that country to share either resources or defense).  Conquerors/Colonists/Settlers are migrants.   French settlers in Spanish owned Texas, therefore, are not immigrants of Spain, they are French colonists and remain French.  Immigrants become illegal when they immigrate without the consent of existing governance - e.g. French settlers who demand to be defended by the Spanish crown without Spain's consent.  Setters/Conquerors/Colonists, on the other hand migrate to a region and take that region for their own governance apart from the nation that has a claim on that land.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

On 7/25/2019 at 9:14 AM, NeuroTypical said:

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

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. 

Yeah, I've been gaining some education in this thread.  Mexico was obviously against Americans settling and taking over what Mexico wanted.   But the United States seemed to have been in favor of it, since we were fighting a war over it and all.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, I've been gaining some education in this thread.  Mexico was obviously against Americans settling and taking over what Mexico wanted.   But the United States seemed to have been in favor of it, since we were fighting a war over it and all.

I'm not understanding the basis of Mexico's claim to the intermountain west. If Old Fred declared that he owned the central western North American continent, would we need to take his claim seriously and consider ourselves law-breaking trespassers if we settled there?

[NeuroTypical]

I think their claim was "we claimed it first".  It is sort of how things were there for a while (like starting in the 1500's).  To make "newly discovered land" yours, you needed two things: 1- Someone claiming it for your country.  2- Someone there to shoot anyone who showed up later and wanted to take it away.   Again, the Native Americans plains Indian tribes of the time, didn't really "count", because of the cultural differences in understanding owned property.  (And when they did "count", it led to fighting which resulted in a clear winner and a clear loser, just like when Mexico and the US fought.)

[Guest Scott]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm not understanding the basis of Mexico's claim to the intermountain west. If Old Fred declared that he owned the central western North American continent, would we need to take his claim seriously and consider ourselves law-breaking trespassers if we settled there?

Obviously the native Americans were there first, but as far as Mexico's claim to the intermountain west, Spain was the first to map that region; the Spaniards were the first anglos to explore the region; establish trade routes; and build outposts.

Here is an early map of Utah, dating to the 1700's.

For location reference for anyone that knows Utah, Lago de Timpanogos is Utah Lake.  

In what is Utah itself, there were only outpost and trade routes.     There never were any large Spanish or Mexican settlements in what is now Utah (unless one is to believe the foklore about lost mines and villages-lot of places in Utah are claimed to have lost Spanish Mines, but few believe in these).    

Later, Mexico declared independence and claimed those lands.

In Utah itself, there isn't that much left concerning the Spanish and Mexican heritage from that time period.    There are old carvings and signatures in the rocks from the 1700's and early 1800's in parts of Utah (such as around Lake Powell, Moab, the Castle Valley, etc).      There are a lot of them along some of the old trade routes such as the Old Spanish Trail, especially near Castle Valley.   Right now I am working very near a place very close to the Utah border where the Spanish first mapped (Canyon Pintado) and where they left there mark.  

Other than that, not much is left except for place names.    The La Sal Mountains, the Sevier River,  San Rafael, San Juan River, etc. were named by the Spanish.

Places like Spanish Valley (Moab), Mexican Mountain and Mexican Bend (in the San Rafael Swell), Spanish Fork, etc. were all named for the Spanish and/or Mexicans.  

While there were no real Spanish or Mexican settlements in Utah other than remote outpost and trading post, there were a lot south of Utah.    Colorado has some too (such in the San Luis Valley).    (Colorado itself is also a Spanish name).  Unlike the outpost in Utah, Colorado was being settled by the Spanish/Mexicans at the same time the Mormon Pioneers were settling the Salt Lake Valley (interestingly, even after the Mexican American War had ended).  The descendents are still there.   There is still fighting (at least occasionally going on) as to what terms were in the original Spanish and Mexican Land Grants.  There are still occasional shootouts.

For anyone interest is some of the rough and tumble history around the San Luis Valley, an aquaintence of mine wrote up some good history on the Culebra Peak page on summitpost.   The page is geared towards hiking, but it contains a lot of history on the area.

Scroll down to the history sections near the bottom of the page:

https://www.summitpost.org/culebra-peak/151463

See how the terms of the land grants are still being debated and only a few years ago was still leading to violence!   
 

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Scott

[NeuroTypical]

It's a good thing when it's a matter of law, and people can resolve things with cops and courts and stuff without killing each other.  Without cops and courts and stuff, well, people can yell "illegal" all they want, reality ends up quite different. 

Mormon pioneers settling Mexico, and Venezuelan refugees coming to the US, are very different things.

Edited July 26, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

[Traveler]

On 7/25/2019 at 8:55 PM, Texan said:

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. 

I see you identify yourself as a "Christian".  How do you reconcile what you have posted above with the last verses of Acts chapter 4 (beginning at 31) and the first verses of chapter 5 (ending with verse 11).  What are the borders of Christianity to which you speak and is not having all things in common what you mean as a welfare state?  If our borders are intended to protect our wealth and power - how can we say we are Christians?  If our borders are intended to protect liberty and freedom then we must welcome all seeking liberty and freedom.  I am concerned because I believe throughout the history of mankind - we tend to think wealth and power is synonymous with liberty and freedom.

But I would say a couple more things - I have come to the religious notion that liberty and freedom cannot exist without G-d.  Not just any G-d but the living G-d - and only among those that worship him - not just on Sunday or as the couple in the first verses of Acts 5 but like those in closing verses of Acts 4.

It is also obvious that there are some that intend to control the the wealth and power of the middle class of this nation which requires an end to liberty and freedom.   How this occurs is often blurred.  How it is blurred can be demonstrated by the history and events around the "Toleration Act" of 1649 and the role played by "Christians" more interested in protecting their wealth and power than serving G-d and protecting liberty and freedom.

 

The Traveler

Edited July 27, 2019 by Traveler

[Guest Scott]

On 7/25/2019 at 1:51 PM, 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.......change my mind, but it'll take more than what's being shown so far. 

As promised, here are some videos/excepts from the Church History on CD.   PS, please ignore the crudeness of the videos since I simply shot them while on my drive to work out of town.    When I got to a relevant section, I just pulled over and made some recordings from the truck radio.

Anyway, I have only gotten through the first CD I mentioned and part of the second.

Here are the videos alluding to some of the things I said about the lands belonging to Mexico, the Federal Government attemtpting to prevent the Saints from leaving, and the Mormon Battalion. 

One thing I had forgotten however, was the role of Joseph Smith's brother, Will Smith in the riling (or attempting to rile) the Federal Government against the Saints.   I have included it below for interest.  Sam Brannan may have been behind some of the perceived federal action. I didn't record all of that part, but anyone who wants to hear more on Sam Brannan can obtain the CDs or stream from In Living Scriptures).  In the end though, there was no action taken against the Saints from Federal troops.     

There is a lot more in the CDs and a lot more that isn't in the CDs in the Church History, so consider all of these to be summaries and I'd encourage further study.    There is a lot more detail if you dig through other sources.  

Here are some of the excepts from the CDs for anyone interested.   One thing to notice is that how many times the Salt Lake Valley is mentioned as being in Mexican territory/Mexico at the time of the  migration, including from the words (see video 5) of Brigham Young (which was the main point of much of my posts).  

PS, I have a lot of videos and don't have time to upload them all at once, so there are more coming.   They seem to upload very, very slowly.  I currently have seven videos to upload.

 I am also only part way through the recommended CDs.    

Also, consider these for review purpose as as mentioned earlier, I'd highly recommend purchasing the entire set and it will provide a lot more context.    I have no intention of copying more than short excepts of copywrited material and recommend buying the entire set.

Video 1

Edited July 29, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Scott]

Video 2

[Guest Scott]

Video 3

[Guest Scott]

Video 4

 

[Guest Scott]

Video 5

Edit:    This will be it for now.   Apparently the other two videos are to large to upload to the forum.    I'd have to re-record them.    Better than this though, I'd recommend just buying access to the Dramatised Church History on CD and listen to the entire thing.   Lots of good stuff in there about all kinds of events and topics.  
 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Mores]

On 7/26/2019 at 1:28 PM, Vort said:

I'm not understanding the basis of Mexico's claim to the intermountain west. If Old Fred declared that he owned the central western North American continent, would we need to take his claim seriously and consider ourselves law-breaking trespassers if we settled there?

On 7/26/2019 at 1:37 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I think their claim was "we claimed it first".  It is sort of how things were there for a while (like starting in the 1500's).  To make "newly discovered land" yours, you needed two things: 1- Someone claiming it for your country.  2- Someone there to shoot anyone who showed up later and wanted to take it away.   Again, the Native Americans plains Indian tribes of the time, didn't really "count", because of the cultural differences in understanding owned property.  (And when they did "count", it led to fighting which resulted in a clear winner and a clear loser, just like when Mexico and the US fought.)

Major difference between then and today. 

• "Claiming Land" is quite different than having established borders that have been recognized and honored for over 100 years.
• We conquered lands back then as did the Mexicans and Canadians, and...    Today, we "negotiate".  The US borders haven't changed much in over 100 years.
• Unused, undeveloped, and undefended lands.  What did the Pioneers do with it, and what do illegal immigrants do with it?

The Pioneers took useless desert land and turned it into arable land and founded a great state.  Illegal immigrants simply pass through in order to gain access to the already developed lands and resources of the citizens of the sovereign nation.

Immigration happened all over the place back then.  To claim that it was "illegal" for the pioneers to cross the borders to the Utah area is simply not a correct characterization of the realities of the time.  And I would still argue that it is even definitionally incorrect.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Mores