Talk:Mexican Repatriation

Title

It appears that unlike some other deportation operations, the Depression-era repatriations were not part of an officially-titled program. Neither were they part of a movement in the sense of "popular", "social", or "political" movement. So the title "Repatriation Movement" is inaccurate. In the absence of an official title, it should probably be moved to United States Depression-era repatriations or something like that.--Rockero 16:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm... what about 1930s Mexican American repatriation?--Pharos 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How about Mexican repatriation from the United States, 1931-1934?--Rockero 04:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This wasn't really a distinct "1931-1934" event. The figure in the first sentence is just a measure of the height of it; it extended some time before and after I'm sure..--Pharos 04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My sources say 1931-1934.--Rockero 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What sources are those?--Pharos 04:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ruiz text cited in the article. Of course, there is always the bigger picture, and it is more than likely that there was pressure on Mexicans to repatriate throughout the Depression and even afterwards. One of the books cited in one of the EL articles is called Abraham Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression: Repatriation Pressures, 1929-1939, but I haven't read it. Ruiz says that the forced deportations had died down by 1934, though.--Rockero 06:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Different sources give different dates. See for example the Handbook of Texas. My point is really that the event wasn't that clearly defined in time. I've been looking around, and it seems the term "Mexican Repatriation", often capitalized, is pretty commonly used (see google), so perhaps that might work. BTW, see this Apology Act for the 1930s Mexican Repatriation Program.--Pharos 09:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that should definitely be mentioned in the article. Mexican Repatriation seems like a fine title to me.--Rockero 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Repatriation isn't the right word. A person who was never a citizen cannot be repatriated. Thus, all the US citizens who were deported were not repatriated to Mexico, they were expelled. And as the majority of those expelled were Americans (1.2 mil out of 2 mil), expulsion or illegal deportation would be more accurate. Harrylovesjeni65 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• This article should really get more in depth about the main causes of the Mexican Repatriation. More introducing details are needed and A section of the article should be based on the question of why it happened more exactly. As a reader of the article I couldn't follow and understand the main reason to deport all the Mexican population during that time. --NJIT_HUM - Shane D

The deported individuals of Mexican ethnicity who were American citizens were mostly citizens under the Horace Gray opinion of the Wong Kim Ark decision. They were deported with their parents who were illegal immigrants. The policy of deporting all children of illegal immigrant parents with them is international standard practice. 98.110.171.75 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the U.S. follows the "International Standard Practice" of deporting all children of illegal immigrant parents because of the 14th amendment which gives citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarbrian (talk • contribs) 07:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the U.S. follows the "International Standard Practice" of deporting all children of illegal immigrant parents because of the 14th amendment which gives citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil. Polarbrian (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly in this case the U.S. did, deal with it paco.96.231.17.247 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Eugenics and Repatriation

Here I am interested in the use of Eugenics idelologies to aid this particular type of re-patration. Any further information in these regards? I suppose any recent issues about Mexicans in American would also be useful - for example, recent immigration reform and the like. This would be useful I think.

RAYCISM! No mexican, the repatriation was because you were here illegally and because Americans needed those jobs. This may come as a shock to you but mexicans don't have a right to live in america as they please.96.231.17.247 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LA Times Mexican Repatriation.jpg

Image:LA Times Mexican Repatriation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:La Opinion Mexican Repatriation.jpg

Image:La Opinion Mexican Repatriation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Since we'll probably violate the 3RVV rule at some point.

Look, I have no idea how many Mexicans were repatriated and what their legal status was and I don't care what the numbers are. Right now our only source is a piece of legislation. I think it is more than fair to mark numbers put forth by politicians that come with no academic citations as being potentially unreliable. - Schrandit (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the bill, we also have the USA Today article. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But the source in the USA Today article giving the 2 million figure is a quote from the State Senator who proposed the bill. The text of the article says maybe as many as 400,000 but again, where did they get those numbers? - Schrandit (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Blatant POV

This article is written in the form of a rebuttal to an unseen argument, presumably the argument made in the bills in California apologizing for this repatriation. All the elements -- low-balling the numbers of people deported to Mexico, openly arguing that more people were deported elsewhere, deemphasizing the number of citizens and legal residents deported -- work to serve this end.

I'll return to work on this but for now here I'm going to add the POV tag. Here are a couple of useful sources. http://books.google.com/books?id=DSzyMGh8pNwC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=deportations+Mexico+depression&source=bl&ots=6BYiK6b_PT&sig=gscDaYEaXwdK6Xs5uxE0uyG2EXw&hl=en&ei=IAj5SsK_H5KqsgPJ7KjUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=deportations%20Mexico%20depression&f=false

http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~mecha/pages/MassDeportationApology.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-04-1930s-deportees-cover_x.htm http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/24/mex%20repat.htm http://www.historynet.com/immigrants-the-last-time-america-sent-her-own-packing.htm Msalt (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is what appears to be a very authoritative and recent source, from Pace Law Review. It sets the number of repatriates at approximately 1 million, and I'm going to update the article's lede to reflect that. http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Johnson/files/PaceLawReview_Johnson2006.pdf Msalt (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

POV is also an issue in this statement: "and the acceptance of repatriation idea (by Mexico) with its lure of colonization projects and free transportation."

Mexico was in the midst of the Cristero Rebellion during those years. The country was in chaos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero_War

I researched the Cristero Rebellion, as an undergrad student under an American professor recently returned from Jalisco state, in the mid-80's. I can't think of anything I read that would support that statement. Mexico, also affected by the Depression, in addition to the Rebellion, was in distress; the repatriates were an unwelcome burden. I also spoke at length with a survivor: an American of Mexican descent who had been repatriated during the Rebellion. He said it was horrific and, as Americans, they were no longer equipped to deal with Mexican culture--outsiders in a country in turmoil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochran61 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the article relies too heavily on this one source, whose reliability has not been established. We can't really use your personal experience and research here, because that would be original research, but we should definitely find multiple sources and reduce reliance on this one book.Msalt (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Pace law Review article lists these as authoritative sources, which we should follow up. The third is that Hoffman book. FRANCISCO E. BALDERRAMA & RAYMOND RODRÍGUEZ, DECADE OF

BETRAYAL: MEXICAN REPATRIATION IN THE 1930S 21-22 (1995). For further analysis of the history of the repatriation, see CAMILLE GUERIN-GONZALES, MEXICAN WORKERS AND THE AMERICAN DREAM: IMMIGRATION, REPATRIATION, AND CALIFORNIA FARM LABOR, 1900-1939 (1994); ABRAHAM HOFFMAN, UNWANTED MEXICAN AMERICANS IN THE GREAT DEPRESSION: REPATRIATION PRESSURES, 1929-1939 (1974) Msalt (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Welfare

"H.M. Blaine “allegedly remarked that the majority of the Mexicans in the Los Angeles Colonia were either on relief or were public charges,” even though sources at the time documented that less than 10 percent of people on welfare across the country were Mexican or of Mexican descent (Balderrama 99)."

The latter claim does not refute the former, since it only mentions the percentage of Mexicans of the total of people on welfare, not the perecentage of Mexicans on welfare. Furthermore the first statement only applies to the Los Angeles Colonia, the second to the country as a whole.