Mexicans have every right to be in California, and some other states

reply to post by Enigami

You kill your morality when you turn your back on your brothers over man-made, politically-driven laws. All should be welcome to roam the earth as they please. In fact, it is a birthright. I'm well aware where we are at in this time period on earth, and that my wish, is, just a wish.

Unfortunately, I don't think your "wish" is due to come true any time soon. If you are a legal U.S. citizen, then I would encourage you (not really, but maybe you have a point to prove??) to try and go settle down in Mexico illegally and see what happens. You may find your "birthright" wiped out completely, as in DEAD.

Don't like Mexico? Try a place like say...China?? In fact, try to settle in most countries illegally and see what happens to your "birthright".

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Wookiep]

In Mexico, there is a saying that state: "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so near the USA". In elementary school, kids are teach a very detail history about the unfair invansions that Mexico has suffer from time to time. Rumors goes this is done for the politic party in power to have some enemy to which the people in the country can join and stand for (and secure the power for that politic power).

So, the topic, being more than one century old, is still a problem.

On certain level, is a problem about resources, about the strong and the weak.
Some posters state that USA won the war, and that they may won a war again if necesary.
Not very smart the idea of "being Mexico fault for lose" (by the same logic we may blame 9/11 to USA government for not being able to stop the planes).
That USA already pay for the land, but it may be state that it was done under a mafia tactic (and the rumor goes USA doesnt even bothered to pay all the bill).

So, USA and Mexico people may do as so many others and keep the fight. Whoever wins, it will be just another sad tale in human history.

Or USA and Mexico people may both try to be better. Yes, USA has all the rights over its States, but is also true that Mexico still has a hurting scare. So you go to your neighbour house, do some shots and move your fence some yards inside your neightbour backyard, you are strong and there is no chance your neighbour may do something about it. Yes is the past, it MUST be left behind, but Madero, the person that was able to throw away Porfirio Diaz the Dictator was kill in the american embassy, I think in 1910. Rumor goes mexican President Ordaz was ordered by USA to control the student riots in 1968 or face a revolt supported by Americans.

And now, well, USA and Mexico are comercial partners, they are even partners for continental defence. There are many families that have relatives in both sides. It would be nice to be good neighbours and left behind all the differences.

Ex US embassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow wrote some book where he stated USA would love an efficient, productive neighbour (like switherland). But really? how many americans would like to have a strong Mexico just at their door? what would say the people that is declaring they would go to war again?

So, yes, Mexico MUST do something to improve itself... but not so much to not attrack too much attention from the north so it doesnt get nervous.
So, yes, Illegals... are Illegals, but maybe USA may help stoping its citizens to hire them.
And yes, USA payed for the territories, but what is USA expecting? To every other country to just cheer? I mean, the 1848 war had nothing to do about it.
And yes all the protagonist of the 1848 war are dead... but actual generations are still carrying the profits and the responsabilities.

The main problem is: Are we, the homo sapiens sapiens, act as primitive animals that resolve all differences with blood and steel? or may we growth and act as God Children?

Yes, its a really bad thing for illegals to bring criminals between them, but what about the others that do work? What about the country that has 40 million people living in extreme poverty? Yes, they are not USA responsability, they are only the people next door, if they come and knock your door better shot them, because you cant tell if the one knocking is the one willing to be a slave or the one uneducated and wild willing to do whatever crazy thing to survive.

It wasn't Jesus the one that said: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

If we stay on the legal side of the issue, some Mexicans are breaking the law, but if we appeal to the spiritual side, then, what do you think?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by oshdra]

reply to post by oshdra


Great post

Ok Im just going to say it. Can somebody name one town/city/area in the United States that is majority Hispanic people that does not look like Mexico? That is not trashy? That does not have dogs running around all over the place? That does not have babies walking around alone? That does not have mexican flags all over the place? Because I find myself hard pressed to find such an area where I live. Its funny how most the people I find who don't care about the problem don't live in the problem. They always seem to live far away uninfected by it.
So lets say tomorrow we decide to give the "stolen" states back to Mexico... What do you think would happen? Let me tell you. All the drug cartels, kid nappers, criminal gangs will all get new territory. And before long the (now recovered "stolen" states) will plummet into 3rd world status. Do you really think if they got the states back they will become luxury vacation spots and destinations? Sorry but reality hurts. We happen to live next door to one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Do you really think all the people coming here illegally are all the good ones?

reply to post by tac109


They are to far away from the fire and don't even feel the heat, by the time they see the flame everything else will be burnt.

u get a star

reply to post by tac109


Some of the people who come here do really well. Even some of those who don't finish their education & just work hard. Their homes are well kept. There aren't any disturbances at the their houses. They take good care of their pets. Some of them were strictly brought up & they raise their kids well. They have better manners than most everyone I know.
Others, it's just exactly as you posted. They make a mess of their lives & have no respect for anyone else- even to the point of seeming to ENJOY trashing other people's property. As if they have no concept of it. (I'm wondering if these are the people Ohdra was talking about who were raised to resent the US- which made me think of the madrasas in the Middle East. Jose Padilla is NOT an Arab name- it's Hispanic in origin.) They are classic RACISTS & a complete NIGHTMARE.

Having said that, I'm shocked at much of what Ohdra posted; getting the impression s/he was saying: You deserve this, let us take our revenge & everything will be okay.
Which is really the same thing the open borders/ look-the-other-way people- the OFAs, are saying.
It is open ended, seemingly in perpetuity (forever more) We MUST pay. We were born white & American, so we must pay.

So I guess we should ALL be Mexicans now and turn our neighborhoods into slums with broken bottles everywhere & weekend stabbings with our gazillion cousins after the barbeque & do drive by shootings, drink lots of beer, whoop it up & make lots of babies & get on welfare- especially since the socialists...excuse me, GLOBALISTS, are going to "take care" of us (meaning screw us to the wall, which has already started anyway). This should elevate the elite globalists even higher on their Mt Olympus & please them very much. And the Mexicans will be happy because they are making our lives hell & everyone will live happily & peacefully together in a perfect world forever like John Lennon said in the song. (oh. except us)
These are facts of things witnessed- EXPERIENCED, over decades- not delusions or imagined fears. Things we've seen all of our lives. (I live with the pain of their neglect & abuse of their animals regularly. Those are some of the dogs I work with daily). If they aren't good people in the first place, I don't think they can be taught or trained to be good citizens or decent human beings, some of them. They just don't care. (well, except about getting into, & at, the US)

As the rapist is alleged to say "it's only worse if you struggle, just lie back & take it" They want carte blanche to destroy America & everyone in it WITH OUR CONSENT.
Are they F-in crazy?

Ah...the whole worlds history is based on war and the drawing and redrawing of borders. I hate these arguments. Theirs a reason the europe,Asia, Africa, have some many different historical maps. But here's an idea let's go to the ancient most times when people first started laying claim to land and set all the borders of the world according to that.

And if we did evolve on earth then we're just animals. Animals are very territorial and fight for land and lose it all the time. I guess it takes a stupid argument to fight a stupid argument.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by conspiracy88


Well since you brought up the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo... let me give you a little history lesson

The Texas "Santa Fe Expedition" was a commercial and military expedition to secure the Republic of Texas's claims to parts of Northern New Mexico for Texas in 1841.The expedition was unofficially initiated by the then President of Texas, Mirabeau B. Lamar, in an attempt to gain control over the lucrative Santa Fe Trail and further develop the trade links between Texas and New Mexico.

The object was said to be one of a peaceful and commercial feature, to open up a trade with the people of New Mexico, and to extend the jurisdiction of Texas over Santa Fe and so much of New Mexico as lay east of the Rio Grande River. This was a part of Texas as defined by the law of 1836. New Mexico, in her isolation, was largely independent of Mexico, and was ruled buy a territorial governor Manuel Armijo.

In 1840 Lamar had already begun efforts to achieve this goal. He appointed three residents of Santa Fe, William G. Dryden, John Rowland and William Workman, as commissioners for Texas, and he sent a letter with them in April 1840 to try to entice New Mexicans to join the Republic of Texas. These efforts were soon followed by the proposed Santa Fe expedition. The military leader was General Hugh McLeod, a graduate of West Point who later became Lamar’s cousin by marriage. Second in command was the notorious Indian fighter Major George Thomas Howard. Both McLeod and Howard played leading roles in the infamous Council House Fight at San Antonio in 1840 in which a Comanche peace delegation, including five women and children, was entrapped and slaughtered in the midst of negotiations with the Texans.

McLeod and Howard’s forces made up five companies of infantry and one of artillery. The expedition included four appointed commissioners, William G. Cooke, Richard F. Brenham, George Van Ness, and José Antonio Navarro, and a number of merchants. Navarro, born in San Antonio in 1795, was the only prominent Hispano to accompany the expedition. He had long been a proponent of Texas independence from Mexico; he was one of three Mexican signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836. Several non-Texans also accompanied the expedition including Franklin Combs (son of the governor of Kentucky), Thomas Falconer (British lawyer recently arrived in Texas), and George Wilkins Kendall (journalist from New Orleans). Falconer and Kendall later published important book-length accounts of the expedition.

In New Mexico Governor Manuel Armijo was cognizant of the expansionist intentions of the Republic of Texas and had been in close touch with authorities in Mexico who gave him material aid in order to resist the invasion. He had up-to-date news on the progress of the Texans, thanks to the arrival in Taos in early September 1841, of the two guides who had deserted the expedition. In Santa Fe his main concern was the sympathy and possible support of the American merchants for the Texans. The Americans on their part were afraid of violence against them, and through the United States consul in Santa Fe, Manuel Alvarez, they appealed to Armijo for protection. Tensions rose to such an extent that on September 16, while Armijo was in San Miguel dealing with the Texans, a group led by his nephew Tomás Martín attacked the residence of Alvarez and almost killed him. His life was saved only by the intervention of Armijo’s secretary Guadalupe Miranda, whereupon the merchants appealed to the United States government for protection.

At the Llano Estacado in northwest Texas, due to the difficulty of proceeding further with wagons, McLeod divided the expedition and sent one party, led by Commissioner William G. Cooke, ahead on horseback to New Mexico. On September 12 the advance party met Mexican traders who gave them route instructions, and a guide was sent back to the main party to accompany them to the New Mexico settlements. The advance party arrived near Anton Chico on September 15. A smaller group led by Captain William Lewis and Commissioner George Van Ness, both of whom spoke Spanish, went ahead. Near San Miguel del Bado they were apprehended by a party of 100 New Mexican soldiers led by Captain Damasio Salazar, the alcalde of San Miguel, who had been appointed by Governor Armijo to guard the eastern approaches along the Rio Pecos. The Texans had expected to be welcomed by the New Mexicans who they mistakenly and naively thought would want to change from Mexican to Texan sovereignty. Never realizing New Mexico was already sovereign. They pretended to have only peaceful intentions of opening trade with New Mexico, but Salazar did not believe them, and they were marched to San Miguel, passing another contingent of 1000 Mexican soldiers on the way. At San Miguel they were brought before Governor Manuel Armijo.

The main party of the expedition surrendered on October 5 near Tucumcari. They were first marched to San Miguel, and then to El Paso and on to Mexico City. Most of the prisoners ended up in the fortress at Veracruz known as the Perote prison, arriving in December 1841. In April 1842 after pressure from Waddy Thompson, the United States minister in Mexico, the Mexican government released most of them and they returned to Texas. One prisoner who was not released was José Antonio Navarro. As a Mexican citizen he was charged with treason and sentenced to death. However, he was able to escape and return to Texas.

In reaction to the embarrassing conclusion of the Santa Fe expedition, Texans attempted several further invasions of Mexican territory. In 1842 the so-called Mier expedition of 261 men crossed the Rio Grande with the intent of acquiring a large territory in northern Mexico for Texas. They were met in the town of Mier and defeated and taken prisoner by the Mexican army, most of them ending up in the Perote prison. The Warfield and Snively expeditions of 1843 were less ambitious repeats of the Santa Fe expedition. Charles Warfield with a small group of adventurers attempted to attack the town of Mora but was driven off by a superior New Mexican force. Warfield disbanded his group, though one contingent of the group under the command of John McDaniel killed Antonio Chavez, a New Mexican trader on the Santa Fe Trail.

Jacob Snively with the approval of the Texas government led about 200 men to prey on New Mexican merchants along the Santa Fe Trail under the pretext that they had crossed Texas territory. The ultimate goal of the expedition was to attack Santa Fe and wrest New Mexico and perhaps even Chihuahua from Mexico. However, the United States government was not pleased with the murder of Chavez by the Warfield expedition and sent a company of dragoons under command of Captain Philip St. George Cooke to protect the next wagon train leaving from Missouri. Cooke confronted and disarmed Snively and his men, thus bringing to an end Texas aggression against New Mexico.

Texans, Mexicans, Spanish... No one invades New Mexico and if they try, we take up arms...

Source: Kendall, George Wilkins (1846). Narrative of the Texan Santa Fe Expedition: Comprising a Tour Through Texas and Capture of the Texans

[edit on 10-5-2010 by DaddyBare]

Originally posted by beyondsense
I'm pretty sick of people blaming Mexicans for making their way back into the land that was stolen from them.

Those early Californians didn't leave the state. They were just as sick of mexican corruption as the americans (Funny how some things never change)

If ANY illegal alien can prove their ancestors actually did 'own' land here and had it confiscated and were driven out of the country I would 'LOVE' to see the proof.

If America remediated the land back to the state it was in in 1848. Every building and utility taken down, every pipe and wire pulled up and taken away every brick and bit of concrete picked up and taken away, level the aquiducts and return tha land to its native state and present it back to Mexico. Do you think that they would be satisfied? NO They would have a screaming fit. Aparrantly the only land we stole from them that they want back had schools, roads and taxpayer funded services on it.

I don't see a lot of illegal aliens squatting on BLM land and improving it.

They don't give a crap about the 'land' they want the services and money.


[edit on 10-5-2010 by ..5..]

[edit on 10-5-2010 by ..5..]

Originally posted by gandhi
Last time i checked, the land belongs to none other but the earth.

We can pretend we own it, but that's just being childish.

And the native Americans knew that. Their intention was protection, not production.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by gandhi]

Hear, Hear! You are so right in that statement. Human beings cannot own what was never theirs to begin with, ad the sooner this is known by all, the better off we will all be. As for the OP and others who support a Mexican invasion of a Sovereign Nation, you have not a leg to stand on. You can look around as see what will happen if Mexico keeps on making war on the United States. And, if you look very closely at what Governor Brewer of Arizona did recently, you will see that the States do not need the Federal Government to defend their Borders. Also, I really wish illegals would stop claiming protection under the Constitution. Unless you are an American, this document does not provide for you.

Just out of pure curiosity, I looked up the 1917 Constitution of Mexico. Reading through it, the Mexican Constitution is similar to the American Constitution, here are a few quotes from the above mentioned website....

1917 Constitution of Mexico
(Bold Text My Own)

Legal capacity to acquire ownership of lands and waters of the Nation shall be governed by the following provisions:

1. Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.

The following are declared null and void:

1. All transfers of the lands, waters, and forests of villages, rancherías, groups, or communities made by local officials (jefes políticos), state governors, or other local authorities in violation of the provisions of the Law of June 25, 1856, and other related laws and rulings.
2. All concessions, deals or sales of lands, waters, and forests made by the Secretariat of Development, the Secretariat of Finance, or any other federal authority from December 1, 1876 to date, which encroach upon or illegally occupy communal lands (ejidos), lands allotted in common, or lands of any other kind belonging to villages, rancherias, groups or communities, and centers of population.
3. All survey or demarcation-of-boundary proceedings, transfers, alienations, or auction sales effected during the period of time referred to in the preceding sub-clause, by companies, judges, or other federal or state authorities entailing encroachments on or illegal occupation of the lands, waters, or forests of communal holdings (ejidos), lands held in common, or other holdings belonging to centers of population.

Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:

1. Mexicans by birth are:

1. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
2. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
3. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels.
2. Mexicans by naturalization are:

1. Foreigners who obtain letters of naturalization from the Secretariat of Foreign Relations;
2. A foreign woman who marries a Mexican man and has or establishes her domicile within the national territory.

Article 33. Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Article 30. They are entitled to the guarantees granted by Chapter I, Title I, of the present Constitution; but the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.

Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.

Article 37.

1. Mexican nationality is lost:

1. By the voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality;
2. By accepting or using titles of nobility which imply submission to a foreign state;
3. By residing, if a Mexican by naturalization, for five consecutive years in the country of origin;
4. By passing in any public instrument, when Mexican by naturalization, as a foreigner, or by obtaining and using a foreign passport;

2. Mexican citizenship is lost:
1. By accepting or using titles of nobility which imply submission to a foreign government;
2. By rendering voluntary services to a foreign government without permission of the Federal Congress or of its Permanent Committee;
3. By accepting or using foreign decorations without permission of the Federal Congress or of its Permanent Committee;
4. By accepting titles or functions from the government of another country without previous permission of the Federal Congress or its Permanent Committee, excepting literary, scientific, or humanitarian titles which may be freely accepted;
5. By aiding a foreigner or a foreign country, against the Nation, in any diplomatic claim or before an international tribunal;
6. In other cases which the laws may specify.

See this, illegals? By invading America, you not only place your own citizenship in jeopardy, but you break your own Constitution, then you loudly claim protection under a Constitution not your own. Just like your own Nation, we have laws that we live by.

America is doing nothing but enforcing the existing laws.

reply to post by conspiracy88


I meant "we" as a collective. And yes, back then it was regular people expanding.

I own a lot of things, simple because they can be taken away doesn't mean I don't own them it just means that somebody stronger than me can take them away.

If someone breaks into your house and takes your TV does that mean they never owned it? No. It means it's theirs now.

NOW, on topic, if you can get your TV back, by all means, go for it. The person who robbed you has claim to it now though, and they'll fight for it.

This is kind of what's happening in America. We took mexican's TV and now they're wanting it back. The problem is we've completely made that TV ours, we've made fortunes with it and put our own lives into it.

What we're doing it telling the Mexicans they can watch our TV but they can't have it again. What we should be telling them is if they try to take the TV back home we'll beat the snot out of them.

Maybe it's rude, maybe it's mean but the Western world never became nearly so powerful on simply being selflessly nice.

reply to post by autowrench


Actually I don't think we are really enforcing it very well right now. I think we should up the border patrol and start purging the illegals a bit more harder. I've always thought that we should work within the country first before we try to solve everyone else's problems, and since the govt. is scrapping for tax payers cash on everything right now, I think this would be ideal. Might even make quite a few more jobs even.
I'm not saying that the illegals are less than anyone else but I'm being blunt and to the point for once. But this country needs to start taking action within our borders instead of mulling around and twirling our thumbs around, but since I am just a tadpole in the pond, I have to let the bigger fish lead zzzzzzz...
Oh well. I am a bit annoyed on how we have people so soft and against our own country. If you don't like it here, then leave? You will find some other countries worse via their politics and systems maybe (not trying to step on toes) but who knows, maybe you can find your own mecca of peace and warm fuzzy trees. meh.

Originally posted by conspiracy88


Not really. If you're really asserting that if this was done today it wouldn't be considered robbery and fraud then idk what to say bc nothing will clearly work. Or vice versa. As far as I know, robbery and fraud have always been the same throughout the years.

I guess slavery has always been viewed as wrong, I guess child labor has always been wrong, I guess rape, pillage and plunder has always been wrong. I could go on for a few more pages with examples….hehe

Different times with different views my friend…

Another one for all you ignorant Mexico haters.

No hate here, I just see history and understand that the world is vastly different even in the last 50 years much less 160 years ago.

So has the Government of Mexico petition the US government over this? Or is it ok for the average citizen just to do anything they feel like doing?

You also refer to Spain/Spanish a number of times and I don’t see them as indigenous so what right did they have to claim anything. Hell the Indians that lived in that area before the white and Brown man came along have the only argument of rights, but then we all know it has been a common occurrence all over the world throughout human history, the more powerful force is the victor with all the rights.

Mexico really never wanted the land back until they found out that Northern California was rich with GOLD! Once the gold boom went off in 1849 thats when all this " The U.S. stole our land" started. The U.S. was swimming in Gold, and Mexico felt cheated with their part, a lot of silver. So here we are now...

Originally posted by tac109
Ok Im just going to say it. Can somebody name one town/city/area in the United States that is majority Hispanic people that does not look like Mexico? That is not trashy? That does not have dogs running around all over the place? That does not have babies walking around alone? That does not have mexican flags all over the place? Because I find myself hard pressed to find such an area where I live. Its funny how most the people I find who don't care about the problem don't live in the problem. They always seem to live far away uninfected by it.
So lets say tomorrow we decide to give the "stolen" states back to Mexico... What do you think would happen? Let me tell you. All the drug cartels, kid nappers, criminal gangs will all get new territory. And before long the (now recovered "stolen" states) will plummet into 3rd world status. Do you really think if they got the states back they will become luxury vacation spots and destinations? Sorry but reality hurts. We happen to live next door to one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Do you really think all the people coming here illegally are all the good ones?

I have travelled to every state in Mexico and after comparing the USA to Mexico, the USA is the trashy one. Mexian citizens are not allowed to fly the Mexican flag. Many people are saying "Mexican people" when what they are refering to is "poor people". The Mexican criminal gangs have killed less than one percent of what the American criminal gangs have killed. We are at almost one million deaths from the Bush cartel.

reply to post by earthdude

Well I live in California, please take a guess at what the majority of these "American Gangs" you refer to are, and what ethnic background they come from? Take A wild guess.

reply to post by TwoTechnics


I live in SoCal. And Earthdude is F'ing CLUELESS! I've been to Mexico many times. Outside of the resort towns and major metropolitan areas like Mexico City.......Mexico is trashy. There are hardly very many "neighborhoods".

You wanna see what Mexico looks like you don't have to go outside of SoCal. Just drive through Santa Ana here in wealthy Orange County. There are even worse examples up by LA. Nice middle class neighborhoods that were built and maintained by our grandparents have gone to crap because of immigrants south of the border. I lived in Colorado for 7 years and it was the same way. All the small farming communities were turned into shanty towns because of poor mexicans. However, it's not a Mexican thing. It's a poverty and education thing. Poor blacks seem to destroy otherwise nice communities as well.

I'm calling BS on the op's tirade of 'this land was stolen from Mexicans, blah blah blah'.

Wanna know why? Because the REAL people who live in Mexico, the actual, real Mexicans, and not these 2 bit punks we have running rampant who are nothing more than invaders ARE DESPISED BY BOTH SIDES. Yup. You heard right. The Americans hate illegals, and SO DO THE MEXICANS. The same group, hated by both sides. I have actually talked to people who a) moved here and went thru the process, and b) people who live in Mexico.

So- you wanna try again? I have real info, by actually talking,so your argument is INVALID and failed.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


I feel you 100%! Being born and raised in Northern, Ca you and I would be considered enemies if we were in a gang, just because we are from two different parts of the state.
A lot of American born Mexicans cant even get along with their own blood coming into the country, and Vice versa. What makes you think they are gonna respect anyone else in this country.

Originally posted by TwoTechnics
reply to post by earthdude

 

Well I live in California, please take a guess at what the majority of these "American Gangs" you refer to are, and what ethnic background they come from? Take A wild guess.

I was talking about the Bush gang, as in George. Just because they held political office does not make them less of a criminal gang. Many seems to be blaming Mexicans and Blacks for urban decay. In reality it is just poverty and trashy is in the eye of the beholder. Mexicans do let their kids run lose and this has always bothered me. It also bothers me when white people shelter their children too much, making them reliant on anti-depressants when they grow up.