# What would be the best way to expel illegals and start over with legal immigration? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 9, 2006, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926 "2006-04-09T05:12:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/121 "2006-04-11T01:03:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That definitely is one interpretation. Although the religious protections are covered elsewhere. And the “voting” and “office holding” characteristics are covered in the concept of single, as opposed to dual citizenship, which is expressly prohibited. > > You latest post seems to me to puch the answer toward language or something else. The reason is that all the other things are mentioned separately. **And given the time and the actons of the governement up until then to unify the country with a common language (of government),** it seems reasonable to me, although admittedly just one interpretation, that the passage intended to Americanize the people in question in ways not discussed explicitly in the articles. This site completely debunks your claims. [Language and Statehood](http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/nm-con.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/122 "2006-04-11T01:12:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Slippery slope!!! I guess you don’t know what a slippery slope argument is. I suggest Wiki. I presented an analogy. Address it. Don’t try to be so…slippery. Oh–I thought you were saying that because I was okay with the violation of one law regarding borders, I’d be okay with the violation of all laws regarding borders. That’d be a slippery slope fallacy, that I’d find nothing to distinguish between the violations of different laws. As an analogy, it sucks. Any analogy comparing private property to a nation-state is a terrible analogy: the two are fundamentally different. For starters, I can kick you out of my house. I can’t kick you out of my nation. Strangers come into my nation all the time without my being aware of it. Theoretically strangers could come into my house without my being aware of it, but that doesn’t happen: the analogy fails. But let’s say they did. Let’s say that in some circumstances I was okay with it, and in others I was not. Let’s say, further, that the ones coming in without my permission were doing work that was vital to my household’s running: let’s call them brownies, coming in and sweeping up at night, if you’d like. I don’t see them, I don’t invite them, but they’re there, and the house would fall apart without them. Let’s say, further, that the only way for me to get them out would be to make my guests terribly uncomfortable being in my house, and to make myself terribly uncomfortable as well. Now we’ve got a better analogy. In this analogy, I’ve got a couple choices: 1. I can teargas the entire house to get rid of the uninvited guests, despite what that will do to myself, my invited guests, and the running of my household; or 2. I can find a way to rework my house’s rules such that these uninvited guests can check in in the lobby and become invited guests, despite what this will do to my rules. It seems bizarre and awful to me to choose option 1; it seems to ignore the reality of my household to do so. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/123 "2006-04-11T04:15:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Look, your little game of “oh that website is affiliated with so-and-so, and I don’t like so-and-so, therefore the information is tainted in some way” has become tiresome. > > Earlier, you objected the words of a fucking treaty because you didn’t like the website it resided on. (Which, by the way, I had just googled to find the wording.) You could have looked up the treaty and checked if the Article I supplied was accurate, but no, instead you just whine. Still, I went and provided another link to the treaty, which, of course, showed the exact same words. Oh bullshit. Show me where I objected to the words of the treaty. Not even going to waste another second of my time until you actually read the stuff I post. ---
**Author:** ![suezeekay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@suezeekay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suezeekay)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/124 "2006-04-11T06:57:02Z")
I think this is going to help motivate some to leave, hopefully. I had no idea this law had been passed because having two nurses in the family, they are always telling me how known illegals come into the hospital and you aren’t allowed to ask them if they are here legally. I’m torn over this because I don’t want to be cruel, but for God’s sake, it has to stop somewhere. Medicare is a huge percentage of the federal budget, so this was an attempt to control some of the costs. > **[US rule demands proof of citizenship for healthcare](http://archive.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/11/us_rule_demands_proof_of_citizenship_for_healthcare/)** > > Almost all of the state's poorest residents will have to show proof of US citizenship to continue getting medical care by July 1, under a little-noticed federal law that could endanger coverage for many, as Massachusetts is trying to expand access to... ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/125 "2006-04-11T15:06:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wow. You don’t really believe that do you? That’s the most important piece of information? My guess is that you simply overstated your position. I s that right? :dubious: **Of course** the most important piece of message is the name of the messenger, and you **know** it. _Ad hominem_ is a logical fallacy, but only with respect to logic, in the strictly deductive sense. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem#Validity:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Validity:) > [@](#): > > Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. > > Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments. > > 1. A committed perjury when he said Q > 2. We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed > 3. therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected Moreover, most **important** arguments involve logical chains of reasoning muddled up with distinctively extra-logical concepts or considerations – “values,” “culture,” “national identity.” Everybody has an agenda. Knowing what that agenda **is** is an indispensable starting point for evaluating any message or argument. In short, if we want to evaluate John Tanton’s arguments, it **is** crucially important to know at the outset that he is a racist. That does not automatically invalidate everything he says, but it does give us a lot of clues about what to watch for. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/126 "2006-04-11T15:07:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wow. You don’t really believe that do you? That’s the most important piece of information? My guess is that you simply overstated your position. I s that right? :dubious: **Of course** the most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger, and you **know** it. _Ad hominem_ is a logical fallacy, but only with respect to logic, in the strictly deductive sense. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem#Validity:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Validity:) > [@](#): > > Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. > > Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments. > > 1. A committed perjury when he said Q > 2. We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed > 3. therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected Moreover, most **important** arguments involve logical chains of reasoning muddled up with distinctively extra-logical concepts or considerations – “values,” “culture,” “national identity.” Everybody has an agenda. Knowing what that agenda **is** is an indispensable starting point for evaluating any message or argument. In short, if we want to evaluate John Tanton’s arguments, it **is** crucially important to know at the outset that he is a racist. That does not automatically invalidate everything he says, but it does give us a lot of clues about what to watch for. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/127 "2006-04-11T21:44:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I see no other interpretation for a legal document. Religion was probably singled out as an issue because the Know-Nothings and Nativists were actively campaigning to harrasss Catholics at that period and the treaty simply let the inhabitants know that the U.S. government did not intend to enshrine anti-Catholic bias in law. I still question the first sentence, but I think you’re right about the rest. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I see nothing in the entire treaty that addresses anything other than citizenship…Anything talking about culture is simply an imposed wish from the 21st century that is not included in the document. Except the passage in question. It’s there. It means something. And I see no more (or less) reason to beleive it implies what you say or I? I don’t see how you can seriously argue that. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I am also curious as to your claim that the government was actively moving to unify the country regarding language (governmental or otherwise). At that time, (late 1840s) French was commonly heard in Detroit and Michigan as well as Louisiana, German was prevalent in Pennsylvania (where a variety lingers on among some groups), and no other significant immigrant group had begun to arrive to get people upset. I have never encountered any actions (originating in Washington, Detroit or Lansing, New Oreleans or Baton Rouge, or Philadelphia or Harrisburg) that attempted to set boundaries on language, so what did this effort to unify in language look like? The Founding Fathers chose to have all documents in English. Even when petitioned during the third congress to have the President’s address printed in German for the many non-English-speaking Germans, it was routinely tabled and never brought to a vote. (The notion that it was voted on and that Speaker Muhlenberg cast the deciding vote against seems specious. I found no record of it in the congressional records.) As you know, Hobbes was an influence on the Founders, so they were probably familiar with this: (boldiing mine) “But the most noble and profitable invention of all other, was that of speech, consisting of names or appellations, and their connexion; whereby men register their thoughts, recall them when they are past; and also **declare them one to another for mutual utility and conversation** ; without which, there had been amongst men, neither commonwealth, nor society, nor contract nor peace, no more than amongst lions, bears, and wolves.” - Hobbes-Leviathan, Chapter 4 Additionally, they were, of course, familiar with the story of the Tower of Babel. But moving more to the timeframe in question. In the 1840s proposals were again made to have the President’s address and other papers printed for the large German population. **For five consecutive years, from 1843 to 1847, the eve of the treaty in question, congress voted DOWN the proposal.** The first year French was proposed as well, and similarly voted down. 12/18/43-german and french [http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem\_6WtA::](http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_6WtA::) 12/3/44 [http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem\_6WtA::](http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_6WtA::) 12/4/45 [http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem\_3MPr::](http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_3MPr::) 12/8/46 [http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem\_3MPr::](http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_3MPr::) 12/7/47 [http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem\_CT9y::](http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_CT9y::) The next mention I could find was in 1952, when, with the treaty behind them, Spanish became an issue. It was a proposal brought forth by the delagate from New Mexico, Richard Weightman. It was voted down. 12/7/52 [http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem\_72pc::](http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_72pc::) Excerpt from the House Journals: > [@](#): > > The question was then put on the motion submitted by Mr. Weightman to amend the latter branch of the said original motion of Mr. Jones, by adding thereto the following, viz: “And that five thousand copies of the President’s message (without the accompanying documents) be printed in the Spanish language.” > And it was decided in the negative. So it seems to me that the mindset of Congress was NOT to embrace other languages. Of course, I could be wrong, but I bet that particulalry because the U.S. was such an amalgam of different people, that a common language was (is) viewed as bonding force. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/128 "2006-04-11T21:57:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: **Of course** the most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger, and you **know** it. > > …Moreover, most **important** arguments involve logical chains of reasoning muddled up with distinctively extra-logical concepts or considerations – “values,” “culture,” “national identity.” Everybody has an agenda. Knowing what that agenda **is** is an indispensable starting point for evaluating any message or argument. We disagree on this. You make good points, but an insulation salesman tells me insulation will keep my house warmer, he is just as right about that as an engineer from MIT. I think it is wise to be somewhat suspect of _the claim_, if you smell an ulterior motive, but you must take on the burden of evaluatiing the it, apart from the messenger. I think the attitude you describe closes minds and promotes partisanship. (Not necessarily political.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/129 "2006-04-11T22:34:16Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Oh–I thought you were saying that because I was okay with the violation of one law regarding borders, I’d be okay with the violation of all laws regarding borders. That’d be a slippery slope fallacy, that I’d find nothing to distinguish between the violations of different laws. You might find these helpful. =http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html [http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php](http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php) [http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope](http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope) > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > As an analogy, it sucks…Now we’ve got a better analogy. And this: [http://www.prufrock.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=427](http://www.prufrock.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=427) Seriously dude, you may want to spend some time with those cites. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/130 "2006-04-11T22:54:00Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > This site completely debunks your claims. [Language and Statehood](http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/nm-con.htm) Oh really? Here are the two paragraphs that are pertinent to the time in question: > [@](#): > > Before the United States achieved independence, Spanish soldiers and colonists from Mexico had established settlements in California, Arizona, and Texas, as well as New Mexico. When Mexico ceded these lands to the U.S. following the war of 1846-48, an estimated 75,000 Spanish-speaking people lived in the Southwest: 60,000 in New Mexico, 7,500 in California, 5,000 in Texas, 1,000 or so in Arizona, and 1,500 in Colorado.\<1\> Spanish was the dominant language and a combination of Spanish-Mexican-Indian culture dominated the region’s life style. > > The Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 and ratified three months later, gave U.S. citizenship to all Mexican nationals who remained in the ceded territory. Only a few – less than 2,000 – left. The treaty also guaranteed certain civil, political, and religious rights to the Spanish-speaking colonists and attempted to protect their culture and language. Now, let’s, for the sake of argument, say that all these estimates are correct. Which part of this debunks my claim? Let’s see, here is the claim you cited that your link supposedly debunks: > [@magellan01](#): > > That definitely is one interpretation. Although the religious protections are covered elsewhere. And the “voting” and “office holding” characteristics are covered in the concept of single, as opposed to dual citizenship, which is expressly prohibited. > > You latest post seems to me to puch the answer toward language or something else. The reason is that all the other things are mentioned separately. And given the time and the actons of the governement up until then to unify the country with a common language (of government), it seems reasonable to me, although admittedly just one interpretation, that the passage intended to Americanize the people in question in ways not discussed explicitly in the articles. It seems that the only part the debunks anything I’ve said is: > [@](#): > > …and attempted to protect their culture and language. Now please show me where the support—any support—is for this claim. Oops, there is none. Now look at the treaty. It is not there either. The rest of your cite talks about the area and proposed legislation during the 1900s, which has nothig to do with the treaty and the mindset of our governement in drafting it. You may wanrt to review my some of the information I supplied to **tomndebb** , as well. I hope that helps. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/131 "2006-04-11T23:19:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Which part of this debunks my claim? You’re claim has been debunked from just reading the text that you posted. It just takes some reading comprehension. And a knowledge of history from that time just further debunks it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/132 "2006-04-11T23:42:17Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > You’re claim has been debunked from just reading the text that you posted. It just takes some reading comprehension. And a knowledge of history from that time just further debunks it. Well that settles that. Thanks for your input. It was so helpful. It lacked any specifics whatsoever, and moved the debate not one iota, but hey, to each their own. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/133 "2006-04-12T00:00:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well that settles that. Thanks for your input. It was so helpful. It lacked any specifics whatsoever, and moved the debate not one iota, but hey, to each their own. They’ve been given already. You just don’t like the logical answers. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/134 "2006-04-12T00:08:47Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > They’ve been given already. You just don’t like the logical answers. And that was **Unregistered Bull** , ladies and gentleman. Let’s give him a round of applause [applause]. He’s something else, that Unregistered. And now let’s here it for Bonzo The Hopscotching Bear. [Applause] ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/135 "2006-04-12T00:14:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > that the passage intended to Americanize the people in question **in ways not discussed explicitly** in the articles. Since these are your words how about explaining the exactly what “ways” you are referring to? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/136 "2006-04-12T00:17:34Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > Since these are your words how about explaining the exactly what “ways” you are referring to? Religious expression, e.g., and whatever else that is explicitly stated in the articles of the treaty. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/137 "2006-04-12T00:18:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And that was **Unregistered Bull** , ladies and gentleman. Let’s give him a round of applause [applause]. He’s something else, that Unregistered. And now let’s here it for Bonzo The Hopscotching Bear. [Applause] What does that have to do with the debate besides absolutely nothing? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/138 "2006-04-12T00:24:14Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > What does that have to do with the debate besides absolutely nothing? It’s an intervening moment of fun with a little shock value that hopefully (but not optimistically) might allow the gentleman to take a deep breath and actually respond to questions when asked, instead of being so stubbornly non-responsive willfully…what’s the word…oh well, no matter. If that doesn’t do it, I give up. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/139 "2006-04-12T00:30:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And that is a very sensible position to take. One that does not try to weasle out of anything. Thank you! I didn’t notice any weaseling in the responses you got. Until you elaborated latter in the thread, I couldn’t even figure out why you were using this article of the treaty in your argument. And like the pevious posters, I can’t see anything in the wording that would imply the mexicans choosing to become american citizens were expected to become culturally integrated. The sentence about the “mexican character” you’re pointing at doesn’t appear to me to have any such meaning, and I find the answers of previous posters perfectly adequate, and not elusive. My opinion is that you’re seeing in this article meanings invisible to most of us. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926/140 "2006-04-12T00:32:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Religious expression, e.g., and whatever else that is explicitly stated in the articles of the treaty. Religion was explicitly dealt with. Now tell us of the ways you referred to Americanize the Mexicans in the territory that were **not explicitly dealt with** in the treaty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-best-way-to-expel-illegals-and-start-over-with-legal-immigration/351926.md?page=8)