Talk:Mexican Repatriation

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. 98.110.171.75 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, in my review of the various sources, I've seen very little formal mention of "eugenics"; mostly just old-fashioned racism. But if you want to look into it some more, Decade of Betrayal is probably the source to start with.—Luis (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2017 (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. Msalt (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Deportation and Repatriation (chapter in book)
 * 2) Sacramento Bee article on California apology act
 * 3) USA Today article on same
 * 4) 404
 * 5) long article from American History magazine

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. 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." Msalt (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mexico was in the midst of the Cristero Rebellion during those years. The country was in chaos.
 * 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)
 * With regards to the Cristero War, I've added a bit of a note adding that it was one more reason for people to go north. On the more general question of whether or not the Mexican government encouraged repatriation, the sources seem to suggest that was a very mixed bag that changed with time: at some points the Mexican government wanted to repatriate (and even provided substantial funds for it), and at other times, as you say, repatriates were viewed as a burden, and even shoved into camps at the borders. (The Aguila article is a decent overview of the history there.) I'd like to say more about what Mexico did, but it is complex and hard to cover, so any suggestions on how to do that are welcome. —Luis (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2017 (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)
 * There is still a lot of work to be done on the article, but I've started cleaning it up quite a bit and added references to several of the articles/books you found. (Most of them are just in Further Reading for now, since I haven't had much of a chance to go through them- enough in the materials already linked/cited.) If you've got a chance to go through what's there and give it another pass, that'd be much appreciated. —Luis (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Life is even busier than usual right now but I will take a stab at it.

The problem is that multiple sources all refer as fact to the assertion of that one source. A number that is not the only representation in that source and includes a state office assertion that none were citizens. The argument was that a birth certificate was required to prove citizenship. I find the 60 percent figure to be unsupported and just a zero rigor off the cuff number. A made up number with no statistical process or any other method of creation other that simply being made up.

Reports of individuals indicate that deportation would happen without the ability to present documents. Also reports were made that children avoided asserting citizenship to avoid placement in the government system so it appears that some deportations were improper. But the 2 million and 60 percent figures appear to have no actual research support other than being issued in a politically charged book without any method or primary supporting sources whatsoever. This article should not parrot such shoddy work no matter how many people have also parroted the 2 mil and 60 percent figures. The fact that these figures were created and were not supported by government documentation would suggest that an actual assessment from records would tell a different story. That would sell less books and reduce the importance of the revelations. This was not done in some backwater. It was done in the US where documentation is held in the hospital and by the state. The idea that over 1 million birth certificates are available and ignored is absurd. The obvious conclusion is that the most political hay is made by repeating the first zero rigor source and any actual rigor applied to find proper supported numbers would greatly reduce the basis for outrage. Surely some poli-sci or sociology student would find fertile ground by searching for these ignored certificates and bringing the huge number to light. That this has not happened and indeed we have been treated to contemporary "researchers" who have not troubled themselves to actually do the work of finding actual documents suggests the numbers are false. They are unsupported by any actual documentation or research.

One politically charged book of the 30's that is self damning as a source as it presents no method or basis and presents conflicting information by the state that it only rebuts with a statement of "figuring" is not a proper source for academic work. For political theater it works a charm. Politically motivated numbers when issued in the 30's without any actual support. As the California government asserted at the time.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:34ED:5B0D:A51D:76DD (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2018 (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.
 * The original source makes this point a little more clearly, but it definitely isn't well-justified in the article as-is. So I've removed this for now. —Luis (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality is a pillar of Wikipedia
This article violates a key belief that the page reflect a factual neutral viewpoint.

It is obviously written to reflect the pro-undocumented side of the current deportation debate in the United States and just as those sentiments are inappropriate here, as are applying contemporary standards and attitudes to an event that occurred almost a century ago.

I could accept some well documented deviation from neutrality if it supported with facts, and viewpoints from all sides, with special attention to what was the accepted standard of the time of all parties involved.

I'm not at all stating that the writer is wrong in his views, it's just those biases are so strong that they are most appropriate in a book rather that an encyclopedia.

The last paragraph in Raids and legal proceedings is lifted from pro-immigrant attorneys that have found that the current best public argument to further the interest of their clients is to tug at the hearts of fair-minded Americans with claims of dividing families.

During the time of these deportations, other than better earnings, Mexicans enjoyed a lifestyle and quality of life more to their liking south of the border, and hostility and second-class citizen status north of it.

It would have been unheard of for a Mexican woman and her children to remain in a foreign land with the head of the family unit was back home where the entire remainder of the family was. Splitting up the family-init in this manner would have been inthinkable in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulndaoc (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're of course welcome to provide citations to alternative points of view, or critiques of specific sentences/paragraphs. The one paragraph you did specifically mention is drawn from a book written by two professors, not from "pro-immigrant attorneys", so perhaps the article has changed? Without more specific critique I'm afraid I can't help you to improve the article. —Luis (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Article referencing some potential new sources
Just came across. Putting here so I don't lose it later. —Luis (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Blaming Hoover?
There seems to be a disconnect in the overall description of Mexican Repatriation. The first paragraph lays the blame at President Hoover's feet; the second says repatriation was "largely organized and encouraged by city and state governments, often with support from local private entities." Where is the evidence of Hoover's responsibility? Or is the second paragraph the one we should lead with?

None of the sources cited, as far as I can find looking through them (some now 404 or behind paywalls), offer any documentation or source of the supposed Hoover Administration policy behind repatriation. Most of them don't even mention Hoover! I would like to see some evidence that Hoover was behind this, not just hearsay. Can anyone find such a source that cites a Presidential Proclamation, Executive Order, or even any public statements by President Hoover that authorized or endorsed repatriation? The policy outlined in Hoover's 1930 State of the Union (which is mentioned in a couple of paragraphs) was to limit the number of incoming visas, not to deport or repatriate anyone.

Hulfnar (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)