Talk:Mexican Repatriation/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 02:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work on this article. There are, however, some issues I think need to be ironed out.

I have some concerns with respect to POV, OR, and SYNTH. I don't really understand why the information about the Mexican-American War and the annexation of Mexican territory is given the weight it currently is. As far as I can tell, none of the sources actually point to this being relevant to the 1930s repatration(maybe the Castillo source does, but I can't find it and there's no page number). The article claims this relevant as a "source of US residents of Mexican descent", but that doesn't seem right either. Let's assume there were 100,000 Mexicans on the territory the US annexed. According to this (I don't know if this is reliable, but I'm just hoping it's not too far off), Mexico's population grew from 6.869 million to 16.032 million between 1849 and 1928 (that is, it grew by 133.4%). Let's assume that the Mexican population in the territories the US acquired grew at the same rate, if we leave immigration aside. Then, there would be just over 230.000 descendants of that original population in the US. According to the article, there were over 1.3 million Mexicans in the US before Repatriation began. Then, based on those assumptions less than 18% of the Mexicans in the US at the time were descendants of the people living in the territory the US acquired in the war. The article seems to be pushing a moral or political point here: that deportation is unjustified because this was originally Mexican territory. Just to be clear, I do think that deporting people is wrong, but I don't think it matters whom the territory used to belong to (does it really matter whether people are being deported from Indiana or California?). But in any case, I don't think the article is quite neutral in this respect.

Another example is "the process arguably meets modern legal definitions of ethnic cleansing". If anything, I think this should say "according to so-and-so, the process meets modern legal definitions of ethnic cleansing". But it should also present opposing points of view such as this. "An estimated sixty percent of those deported were birthright citizens of the United States" This is also disputed.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We should probably wrap this up at some point. Do you have any idea when you'll be able to get around to this?--Carabinieri (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)