Alamo Alliance

Samuel Huntington speculated that the American “creed” (values and beliefs) cannot be used to openly oppose mass immigration.16 That may change. So far, the immigration debate has centered on the immigrants themselves?whether they are worthy or unworthy. This debate is a red herring, since average Americans are unusually kind and restrained in the face of mass immigration, something that cannot be said about other nations (including Mexico).17 Recent poll findings from Zogby challenge the popular belief that the average American somehow has negative or overtly prejudicial feelings toward Mexicans in particular.18 However, Huntington did not take into account the possibility that the debate could yet be framed in terms of potential usurpation from the political class using immigration as a tool. If an organizeable mass of Americans comes to suspect that mass immigration from Latin America is being used by the political class to undermine their democracy and as a tool to liberate the political elites from the Jeffersonian and Madisonian constraints, then indeed we may witness a reaction?but hopefully not against the immigrants themselves, as they are also objects of elite manipulations in more than one country.

The Founding Fathers also prescribed a cure for usurpation. Hopefully the American people will not apply it so literally, for the sake of those legislators.

My campaign headquarters received a package in the mail today from an unknown sender, where the return address should be, was a sticker of the Mexican flag. Inside was a Mexican flag and three pages of propaganda. The first page said the whites will soon go back to Europe, the blacks must go back to Africa and scribbled on the bottom was ‘and f*** Asians
too. We will take our land back through RECONQUISTA!’

The next two pages are El Plan de Aztlan. It starts off ‘be warned Gringos’ and goes into how the La Raza de Bronze will drive out the
exploiters and declares independence of their mestizo nation. Under their economy goals is ‘Land and realty ownership will be acquired by the community for the people’s welfare.’

This movement is without a doubt racist and communist. Is this the same La Raza that Bill Clinton & Karl Rove spoke at?”
Art Olivier.

We then contacted Art and asked to post these documents on this site. Below is the cover page of what Art provided us.

We at AlamoAlliance.org assert that the traditions, customs and language of the United States of America represent a distinctive American culture that is unique to the United States.

We believe that the American culture is a product of the fundamental principles of self-government, self-reliance, liberty and justice as set forth by our founders in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

These guiding principles and the shared experience of the American people over two centuries, in war and peace and in times of hardship and plenty, have created the uniquely American Heritage.

We assert that it is the duty of the government of the United States to protect and preserve the common heritage, traditions, and language of America.

We further assert that the United States of America is a Sovereign Nation with the absolute sovereign right to accept or reject any application for citizenship.

Written into the Constitution of the United States, in Article IV, Section 4, the government of the United States guarantees to protect the States from invasion.

It is our belief that in the United States today, are 20 to 30 million illegal aliens. Our government has willfully neglected and completely failed in its Constitutional duty to protect the States from invasion and has willfully neglected and completely failed in it’s duty to enforce the duly enacted laws of the United States Congress.

We demand that the government of the United States abide by the established laws of the United States Congress and the United States Constitution and secures our borders NOW!

A group of Argentine statesmen in the 19th century sought to populate their country with immigrants from certain parts of Europe, believing that they were more politically mature and more propitious for a stable state than the criollo and mestizo populations in their country at the time. One of those statesmen, President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, had a slogan: “To govern is to populate,” perhaps because Argentina traditionally has been both under-populated and ungovernable.

What could be motivating U.S. legislators to do the opposite, that is, to see their constituents?already politically mature and proven as responsible and civic-minded?as an obstacle needing replacement? In other words, why would they want to replace a nation that works remarkably well (that Sarmiento was hoping to emulate), with another that has trouble forming stable, normal countries?

Mexicans are kind and hardworking, with a legendary hospitality, and unlike some European nations, harbor little popular ambitions to impose models or ideologies on others. However, Mexicans are seemingly unable to produce anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, oftentimes even accepting them as the norm, unaffected by allegations of graft or abuse.8 Mexico, and Latin American societies in general, seem to suffer from what an observer called “moral relativism,” accepting the “natural progress” of the political class rather than challenging it, and also appearing more susceptible to “miracle solutions” and demagogic political appeals. Mexican intellectuals speak of the corrosive effects of Mexican culture on the institutions needed to make democracy work, and surveys reveal that most of the population accepts and expects corruption from the political class.9 A sociological study conducted throughout the region found that Latin Americans are indeed highly susceptible to clientelismo, or partaking in patron-client relations, and that Mexico was high even by regional standards.10

In a Latin environment, there are fewer costs to behaving “like a knave,” which explains the relative failure of most Spanish-speaking countries in the Hemisphere: Pauperized populations with rich and entrenched knaves. Montesquieu?s separation-of-powers model breaks down in Latin America (though essentially all constitutions are based on it) since elites do not take their responsibilities seriously and easily reach extra-legal “understandings” with their colleagues across the branches of government, oftentimes willingly making the judicial and legislative powers subservient to a generous executive, and giving the population little recourse and little choice but to challenge the system in its entirety.

These pathologies are already evident across the border. For example, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when even President Clinton?s strongest backers such as Rep. Richard Gephardt were distancing themselves from him and calling on the president to “tell the truth,” the Hispanic Caucus in the U.S. Congress lent its support to the president. Rep. Esteban Torres stated “We?re going to stand by him to the end ? no matter what!”11 The case of the “unconditional support” by the Hispanics in Congress to their patron demonstrated why the Montesquieu-Madisonian model had difficulty functioning in the Latin American context. This type of unconditional support seems to be what professional politicians of both parties expect from their Hispanic constituents and allies.