Sunday, February 10, 2008

In the Conflict over Immigration, We Must Turn to International Law

This is a very interesting and provocative article on The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its potential as a human rights declaration today. A worthwhile read. -Dra. Valenzuela

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo:
In the Conflict over Immigration, We Must Turn to International Law
by Armando Rendón, J.D.

This February 2nd, the 160th after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo , we should celebrate this birth certificate of the Mexican American people as a living document and determine to bring it to bear on a set of problems which stem from that very moment of inception when a crossing border created a new people.
To the detriment of Americans of Mexican descent, our watershed issue so far during this first decade of the 21st century has been immigration. Global forces are at work that drive people across borders: for work, for freedom, for survival.

In this country, millions of undocumented aliens, particularly mexicanos and centroamericanos, are stigmatized and victimized for having exercised a basic human right: to seek a means of livelihood and freedom by leaving their homeland. They have become a consistent target for right-wing and nativist Americans, easy prey for politicians eager to make points with those same immigrant bashers, and a ready outlet for hate-mongering radio and TV talk show hosts and pseudo-news anchormen. The mass movement across the Mexican border has colored national politics and generally demonized a group which is among the most vulnerable segments in the population.

By the same token, Americans of Mexican descent are also viewed as recent newcomers to the U.S., as an unassimilated immigrant population, and as a criminal horde, illegally entering the country and then taking jobs and social resources, without mitigation on their part. While better informed Americans may know these to be outright lies, the overall denigration of Mexican immigrants taints all Americans of Mexican descent with the one brushstroke of racism.

In short, the immigrants who come across our southern border, legally or illegally, have become a scapegoat for the country’s economic ills and political paranoia. In the process, any “Mexican-looking” person is considered an “illegal” and, in fact, I believe the entire Latino American population is similarly characterized and demonized as well.

The matter has reached a crisis stage.

Just recently, the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR) released “Over-Raided, Under Siege: U.S. Immigration Laws and Enforcement Destroy the Rights of Immigrants,” a report that details human rights abuses against immigrants in the past two years, including those arising from 206 immigration raids.

Besides the obvious harm that anti-immigration forces have inflicted on families and individuals, leading to deaths along the border and continual harassment in the workplace, this issue alone has delayed the advance of Mexican American social, cultural and economic development more than any other. Because of its persistence in the media, in Congress, and in electoral politics, the question of immigration has undercut the progress of the past 40 years. We now have to take the offensive.

It’s high time we take our case to the courts. Specifically, it’s time that we realize the potential of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and put it to the test to bring international pressure on the U.S. to deal justly with the issue of immigration.

Evidence has been mounting that the U.S. Government, the Bush Administration and federal, state and local agencies have conspired to deny the human rights of American citizens, Mexican citizens, and sovereign indigenous tribes along the border in direct violation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, conventions of the Inter-American system of human rights and the general principles of international human rights law.

Every year, as February 2nd approaches, I find myself trying again to de-mystify the Treaty and clarify what the document is really about, as I see it.

A great deal of rhetoric has built up surrounding the exact nature of the Treaty and what it affords in terms of particular rights. The Treaty is not a civil rights document; the human rights which the Treaty actually guarantees, I believe, are of as great if not greater moment than the activities people wish would be protected under U.S. statutes.

That’s why the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is so important, especially now that Mexicans, Mexican Americans and indigenous border tribes are under attack. Guadalupe Hidalgo, I believe, extends human rights protections because as a treaty between nation states, the United States of America and Mexico, it contains specific text ensuring protections in certain areas and general language that can be construed to extend protections within the broad context of international human rights law.

It’s crucial to comprehend this background because, according to the way the inter-American system works, certain hurdles have to be passed before the matter can begin to be addressed at a regional or bi-national level.
Perhaps most significant in regard to the current situation is Article XXI of the Treaty which commits both the U.S. and Mexico, “If unhappily any disagreement should arise” between the two countries, they promise “to settle the differences arising, and to preserve the state of peace and friendship.” Furthermore, if the two countries cannot work out a resolution, “such difference should be settled by the arbitration of Commissioners appointed on each side, or by that of a friendly nation.”

Does a conflict exist which would trigger the protections in the Treaty? I believe the evidence is clear:
• As many as 4,000 Mexican nationals have died in attempts to cross the border or to survive the journey from the border to their destinations across deserts and rough terrains.

• Mexican nationals not only suffer the trials of making border crossings but face the threat of vigilante groups

• The U.S. President has federalized several thousand National Guard troops to serve as a highly armed policing force.

• The U.S. Government has thrown up fences along several strips of the border and is planning to erect walls that rival the Berlin Wall and the barriers erected by the Israelis to block off Palestinians.
Keep in mind, of course, that the Treaty predates the codification of a global body of agreements and covenants that we now recognize as generally accepted human rights law and practice; however, the Treaty does rely on precedents in the area of treaty law as then in existence that infer today’s human rights statutes and covenants.
On the basis of my analysis, the Treaty can be construed as extending human rights protections because it reflects wording in the U.S. Constitution, the French Constitution and other Treaties of that period. Today, the most well known and most referred to document in the field, of course, is the United Nations Charter, which gave birth to a complex framework of international conventions and regional organizations, including the Inter-American system of human rights. I submit that there is an unbroken line between the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and present conventions and charters which declare the primacy of human rights principles under the international rule of law.
The case can be made to prove that link exists, so that the Treaty becomes a viable element in the bi-national campaign to stop the human rights abuses by resorting to the inter-American system of human rights.

When the Treaty was signed, a new juridical entity was created: the Mexican American. Theoretically, the Mexicans living in the territory conquered by the U.S. Army were a silent third party to the Treaty. In fact, so were the indigenous tribes, who are referred to as “savages” in the Treaty.

However, as has been the case with most of the treaties that the U.S. Government signed with indigenous tribes in
the 1800s, Guadalupe Hidalgo was also violated almost as soon as the seals were stamped.
Still, the Treaty provides us entrée to the inter-American system of human rights. The Treaty sets out a process by which a conflict can be reconciled as between equals, using tools commonly at hand among nations operating under the rule of law: negotiation, the use of impartial third parties, and deference to established international law.

According to the inter-American convention on human rights, the Treaty must first be brought before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for an advisory opinion as to whether it has jurisdiction over the Treaty. For years, that step has been waiting to occur because the right kind of legal matter must underlie such a request. I believe the critical nature of human rights abuses related to failed immigration practices in the U.S. provide that legal basis.

Assuming the Court recognizes the Treaty as within its jurisdiction, would the Court accept the premise that the Treaty of itself guarantees human rights? Again, I believe a winning argument could be made to that effect.
The convention also requires that States Party to an agreement can bring a case before the Commission and Court. The two States Party are the U.S. and Mexico.

Would either Government bring the case before the Commission and Court for its opinion? Given the disdain in which the present United States’ autocracy holds human rights law and agreements and the international bodies that oversee them, the U.S. would probably not even consider the notion. Certainly the Bush Administration would deny a conflict of the nature portrayed in the Treaty exists.

Would the Mexican Government risk tangling with the U.S. in the inter-American arena? From my own experience conferring with Mexican scholars and lawyers in Mexico, the Treaty is not a welcome topic. I believe the case could be made, though, that it is a viable weapon in bringing international attention upon the growing conflict along the border and an untried means for Mexico to protect its nationals.

Nevertheless, the convention allows for individual or group submissions to the Commission where events have reached a point that they cannot be resolved or in which litigation at the domestic level is being thwarted. I believe that condition exists.

The matter of immigration has a continuing negative effect on the social and political standing of Chicanans in this country. The emphasis on our people as recent immigrants tends to undercut the primordial role of Mexican Americans in the development of what is now the U.S.A. Consider the enormous effort that it took to force PBS and Ken Burns to revise the mega-documentary, “The War,” and tack on a half-hour of interviews showing the contribution of Mexican Americans and American Indians in World War II.

Without the Defend the Honor campaign, Burns’ pop-epic would have been shown for years into the future, reinforcing the notion that Mexicans and Mexican Americans had nothing to do with the freedoms we now enjoy.
As long as Americans of Mexican descent are portrayed relentlessly by politicians, right-wing nativists, and the media as illegal newcomers, the exploitation of their labor, the denial of social services, and the deepening inhumane treatment of millions of our people will continue unabated for decades to come. For this overarching reason, we should take our cause to the international arena. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo can be the portal to that arena. That’s why I recommend the creation of a legal task force to examine my proposal and recommend appropriate action.

Finally, I believe we have a great deal to gain by joining forces with the indigenous tribes along the border who have been meeting in bi-national summits for the past year to deal with encroachments by the U.S. Government on Indian land. Because the Treaty is an international agreement between two nations, each has the power to invoke the guidelines of the Treaty for resolution of the ongoing conflict.

What the tribal Governments need to explore is whether they, as sovereign nations, can trigger the protections in the Treaty by submitting a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and by virtue of its consideration, move to an advisory or a juridical review by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. We have joint cause to make with the Commission.

In any case, the cause which is being carried forward within the U.S. must be taken to another level. By opening up a new front within the inter-American system of human rights, the attention of the community of nations can be focused on the abusive treatment of Mexicans, Mexican Americans and indigenous tribes by the U.S. Government’s punitive measures. The power of international concern and intervention can be brought to bear on this matter.

It would be another way of telling the world, we belong here, we’ve always belonged here, and we mean to stay.

In a thesis which I completed in 1982 at The American University law school in Washington, D.C., I posed the notion that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was in fact not only an international document but that by virtue of its link to modern documents conveying the basic precepts of human rights principles, it was also a living human rights document. The text of that thesis is attached to provide more detailed information on the Treaty as a human rights document and the basics for initiating an action before the inter-American system of human rights.

Armando B. Rendón, Esq.
*Copyright, Armando B. Rendón, Washington, D.C., 1982
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, enacted 134 years ago to affirm peace and friendship between the United States and Mexico, gave birth to a unique “person” in the Americas—the Mexican American or Chicano.1
As subsequent events bear out, the Treaty also generated a mass of litigation, from trial court to Supreme Court. However, the nature of these actions almost exclusively asserted only one of the rights guaranteed specifically to the Mexicans who elected to stay on this side of the new border, the first Mexican Americans.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in spite of its years, is a living document. It provides guarantees which are protected not only on a domestic level but internationally as well. Within a relatively new human rights system, the Treaty represents a valuable and practical tool in seeking redress for violations of these rights. Unfortunately, the Treaty has been relegated to a land grants document rather than pur¬sued as a viable alternative and foundation for sound hu¬man rights assertions in domestic and international tribu¬nals.
From the earliest cases which ensued almost from the moment the Treaty was signed until the more recent cases which deal with American Indian claims,2 the right to “prop¬erty” has been the dominant focus in challenging or citing to the Treaty. The ownership of land, for a number of rea¬sons, was uppermost in the minds of the inhabitants in the lands taken from Mexico by the United States. Land meant a livelihood, if not wealth, prestige, a patrimony, certainly the means to sustain life itself.
The Mexican Americans, robbed, cheated, taxed, beaten, murdered and lynched, or otherwise driven off their lands (See Appendix A), went into the U.S. courts only to find ei¬ther that they had no protected titles where Texas was con¬cerned3 or that the Treaty, instead of validating previous land claims had only given claimants the right to seek vali¬dation or clarification in U.S. tribunals.4 As one court saw it, Mexicans in the ceded territories got merely the status of citizenship under the Treaty; they gained no special guar¬antees under it.5
Article IX of the Treaty specifically cites the right to “liberty and property.”6 At the time, the right to challenge land claims or validate titles was an important and perhaps the crucial issue, often a life-and-death matter, to the early Mexican Americans. However, we assert that the Treaty conveyed—under the rubric of the right “to liberty” and by virtue of other documents specifically incorporated into the Treaty—a whole range of values and individual guarantees which apparently were not then considered assertable theories in litigation but which have since become both national and international standards of law.
Moreover, while the right to property and claims stemming from it exclude Texas, U.S. citizenship was afforded all Mexicans within the territories who did not elect to retain Mexican citizenship by the end of one year. The other rights, to life and liberty, in other words, adhered to all Mexicans who remained on the U.S. side of the new border: in effect, these guarantees were extended not only to individuals but to the group clearly identifiable by their national origin as Mexican/Americans. The significance of this factor will become clearer in the light of subsequent developments in the law.
Because land constituted the very sustenance of life in the society of the 1800s, it is understandable that claims to property depended on assertions of title, adverse posses¬sion, riparian rights, community ownership, and the like. In time, the significance of land has given way to the right to life and liberty as the primary values in affecting redress for wrongs against civil and human rights, for example, where denial of one’s civil rights results in death at the hands of another, code law supplants the direct murder charge. See 18 U.S.C.A. §242.
Chicano claims for justice are basically at an impasse. Claims related to property rights obviously have faltered not only in the courts but also in the public conscience. The efforts of Reies Tijerina and the Alianza Federal de Mercedes Libres in the 1960s’ land claims movement in New Mexico sought redress in the courts and in public opinion, even in the halls of the United Nations7—to no avail.
What this paper urges is a new approach, retracing many of the same documents, but reexamining them in light of the development of international systems for the protection of human rights. The inter-American system, in particular, did not exist as a forum even two decades ago. Now, by reviving the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo along modern conceptual lines of human rights, Mexican Americans may, in fact, have a new opportunity to redress decades-old griev¬ances.
We present here a review of the basic documents pro¬viding us with the framework to understand that “life and liberty” were perceived as human rights, each part of the other, at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with the goal in mind of bridging these views with the modern documents on human rights. The purpose, of course, is to provide an overall analysis of U.S. and Mexican documents, with greater attention paid to the Mexican sources which are less known in the United States.
America’s commitment to basic individual rights is embodied first in the Declaration of Independence, al¬though these principles also appear in the earlier “Decla¬ration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress”.8 The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence asserts that,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”9
Not till 1868, however, did the United States constitu¬tionally bestow upon the concept of “life, liberty and prop¬erty” the status of protected individual rights, interdepen¬dent facets of the fundamental equality and worth of the human person. The 14th Amendment reads:
§1. All persons born or nationalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State ... shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.10 (Emphasis added.)
These two tenets, taken together with Article 11 §2 (2) which places treaty making authority in the President11 and Article VI (2) which asserts that the Constitution of the United States and its laws and Treaties shall be “the supreme law of the land ...12 indicate that pre-1848 in the United States, “life, liberty and property” were understood as a whole, each ele¬ment complementing and encompassing the other. Later Statutes, such as 18 U.S.C.A. §242 and 42 U.S.C.A. §1983, reinforce, this view.13 Under these laws, a U.S. citizen may seek redress in court against violations of Constitutional and Treaty rights involving Government officials or agents.
Mexican views on the right to life and liberty are well-rooted in official documents of the Republic both prior and subsequent to 1848. Citing the seminal nature of the Decla¬ration of Rights of Man and Citizen by the National French Assembly in 1789 to Mexican constitutional thought, Noriega, in tracing the sources of individual rights in the Mexican Constitution of 1917, says,
... the Law, and for that matter, the laws, enacted in chapter one of our Constitution, make crystal clear the challenge stemming from that great dynamic of the natural law of a Nation: that law which has been evolving in the heat of the struggle begun in 1810, which fomented in 1814 and became incorporated in 1824 in the life of the Republic; felt and absorbed in 1847 and which became flesh and spirit in 1857.14
Noriega reinforces the notion posited herein, that life, liberty and property are essentially interrelated to each other and to the derivative rights which become successively more specific to social, economic and cultural needs of an increasingly complex world.
Noriega states,
... I shall seek to enumerate the most salient rights which the State should recognize and protect: the right to life, to existence; the right to physical freedom, the right to bodily integrity, the right to be master of one’s own destiny.15
In the prior quote, Noriega referred to a series of historic documents, for one, the Constitution of 1824, which averred in Article 24,
The happiness of a people and of each individual consists in the mutual enjoyment of equality, security, property, and liberty. The preservation as a whole of these rights is the goal of Government and the only objective of political bodies.16
Furthermore, in the Actas de Reformes of 1847, Article 5 asserts, “...the declaration that a single law would insure the guarantees of liberty, security, and equality in favor of all citizens of the Republic...17 (Emphasis added.)
Finally, in the Constitution of 1857, Article 14 stipulates,
No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without (due process) before tribunals already established which conform with the essential procedural steps and comply with the laws previously enacted toward that end.18
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo incorporates language reflecting much the same conceptual framework of these Mexican documents and by reference those Statutes and Treaties more familiar to the United States. Further on, a review of the inter-American human rights documents demonstrates that an unbroken line exists between the Guadalupe Hidalgo and 20th century human rights law, a fact that has yet to be tested after nearly a century and a half.
The formulation of the Treaty, as early and then revised texts indicate, progressed from a full recognition of inalienable rights of those already on the northern side of the new border, citing longstanding international agreements, to a well-excised document, grudgingly granting the new Mexican/Americans the most minimal protections.
However, as we shall see, by reference to U.S. documents, other treaties, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo itself, and to some extent a suppressed protocol, the full scope of rights encompassed in the Treaty will become apparent.
Moreover, a review of the inter-American human rights documents demonstrates that an unbroken line exists between the Treaty and today. This fact has not been recognized nor, consequently, put into practice in litigation since 1848.
Article VIII, in para. 1, identifies as a group, “Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico...” and adds in para. 2, “...who have remained in the said territories (beyond the year from the date ratifications were exchanged) without having declared their intention to retain the character of (citizens of Mexico) shall be considered citizens of the United States.”19
The grant of citizenship, therefore, is not made with regard to propertied status or place of residence: that group of persons of Mexican origin who simply decided to stay behind the new boundary line became citizens by operation of Treaty law.
However, Article IX declares that,
(These) Mexicans... shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States and be admitted, at the proper time (to be judged by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.20 (Emphasis added.)
Both conditions, the tacit election to assume U.S. citizenship after one year and the admission of the territory into statehood, are since fully complied with by operation of law, although in the case of New Mexico, it took more than half a century before it was finally admitted as a state. Congress, in effect, withheld full citizenship from the Mexican/Americans by setting a vague point in the future (“at the proper time”) for grant of citizenship.21 Congress’ fears are clear from a reading of the original text of Article IX, as follows:
Those Mexicans (who by operation of law become U.S. citizens under Article VIII) will be incorporated into the Union of the United States and will be admitted as soon as possible in conformity with the Federal Constitution and to the enjoyment of full rights of U.S. citizens and meanwhile shall be maintained and protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, their property and of the civil rights which they now have according to Mexican law.22 (Emphasis added.)
Article IX originally also provided:
... with respect to political rights, their condition shall be on an equality with that of the inhabitants of the other territories of the United States (and at least equally as good as that of the inhabitants of Louisiana and the Floridas) when (they) became territories of the United States .23
Thus, the explicit extension of protections already in effect by virtue of Mexican law as to personal (human), property and civil rights were diluted. And, by deleting reference to the Floridas’ treaties, Congress also sought to curtail extension of treaty precedents by reference to the Louisiana and Floridas’ treaties. The words in Article IX, as to “equality with that of the inhabitants of the other territories,” and “at least as good,” apparently appeared too generous.
However, two U.S. and one Mexican commissioner drafted and signed a protocol on May 26, 1848, setting forth the understanding which each side had of the revised document. The protocol stipulates that Article IX reflects and in effect incorporates Article III of the Louisiana Treaty (April 30, 1803) as well as the intent of Article VI in the Floridas Treaty (February 27, 1819). 24 The three commissioners affirmed that the U.S. Congress, by substituting Article III of the Louisiana Treaty for Article IX of Guadalupe Hidalgo,
... has in no way sought to diminish what was agreed to in Article IX. ...As a consequence, all the freedoms and guarantees of a civil, political, and religious nature which the inhabitants of the ceded territories would have under Article IX, the same without difference are contained in the substituted article.25
Controversy surrounds the drafting of the Treaty as well. N. Trist, the U.S. negotiator, had been deprived of portfolio before entering into negotiations with Mexican authorities. The protocol itself was suppressed and never made a part of the Treaty. Despite this questionable genesis, the Treaty was accepted by Congress, amended, and ratified on U.S. Independence Day, July 4, 1848. All but one question is moot: Does the Treaty contain protections of relevance to current human rights issues or is it a dead letter?
The concept that “life” itself is a right inherent in the nature of human beings seems so obvious that it hardly re¬quires documentation. Yet, from this essential notion are derived, as Contardo indicates, so many related protections that human existence as a value in itself becomes the start¬ing point for the projection of a whole series of affairs and conditions within a number of international documents.
Contardo, writing in the Revista Chilena de Derecho, notes how often the right to life is omitted as a specific ref¬erence in many if not most constitutional documents: though it seems so apparent, the right to life, as the most immediate possession of oneself, must be memorialized, especially in light of “the new multiple forms of attack” humanity now faces.
Contardo adds,
As a consequence of (the right to life’s) gaining constitutional recognition, there may be derived numerous legal means to protection this right, to sanction its unjust violation, and to create proper conditions for its exercise.26
“From this root sprout other concerns,” (De alli brotan otras exigencies) Contardo asserts, which demand the cre¬ation of structures within society to protect and augment the assurance and protection of human rights such as medi¬cal care, social security, police protection, employment, even economic stability:
No one can be barred from the exercise of these rights, because to do so indirectly attacks one’s right to life.27
The United Nations Charter, that momentous document in the whole history of world affairs, itself does not specifi¬cally assert a “right to life”, rather it characterizes its States Party to the Charter as, “Determined ... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person.”28
More to the point is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a derivative document of the UN Charter. Several articles specify that life is a protected value and elaborate its many ramifications into society.
Article 3 cites the right to “life, liberty and the security of person”; 4, denounces slavery and any form of forced servitude; 5, condemns “...torture, cruel, inhuman or de¬grading treatment or punishment”; 7, entitles the person “to equal protection of the law”; 8, 9, and 10, assert rights to effective remedies before competent tribunals, fair and public hearings by impartial tribunals, and freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; 25, promotes the right to a decent standard of living, and 27, seeks progress for all by participation in or benefiting from cultural, artistic and scientific progress.29
Of immediate relevance to human rights in the Ameri¬cas is the Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man, adopted by the Organization of American States in Bogotá in 1948, which is also quite explicit. The introductory paragraphs assert basic assumptions about “the dignity of the individual” and the generic nature of “life in human society...” The Pre¬amble adds substance and depth to the “life” value, pro¬moting culture as the highest social and historical expres¬sion of ... spiritual development is the duty of man to preserve, practice and foster culture by every means within his power.30
Several articles assert a series of related rights: I, “life, liberty and security of person”; II, equality of all persons before the law without distinction; XI, preservation of health and well-being; XIII, the “benefits of culture”; XVII, the recognition of a juridical personality and of civil rights; XVIII, the right to a fair trial; XXV, protection from arbitrary arrest, and XXVI, due process of law.31
In the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which was approved in 1960, Article 2 assumes by reference the listing of rights as set forth in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. In Article 9 and 9 (bis), among the functions and powers vested in the Commission is that it pay “particular attention to observance” of certain of the rights cited in the American Declaration, including the ones cited in the preceding paragraph (except for Articles XI and XIII which the author added).32
Finally, the Regulations of the Commission, approved in October 1960, places the Commission under the governance of the OAS Charter with its functions determined by the Statute while its scope of goals and activities derive from the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man. The full impact of the Commission’s powers is spelled out in following sections. The significance to Mexican American needs and aspirations will also become apparent.33
Reflecting its derivation from the American Declaration and other human rights documents, the American Convention on Human Rights further enhances the understanding of “right to life” as an inherent human value and societal goal. The Convention, of course, is of crucial importance, as we shall discuss, with respect to the procedural, administrative and juridical system now established in the Americas.
Because of the particular focus of this paper on inter-American human rights, specific references within the American Convention which fall into the general penumbra of “life”-related rights are reviewed as follows:
Preamble ...the essential rights of man are not derived from one’s being a national of a certain state, but are based on attributes of the human personality; and they justify international protection...complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.
Article 4.1. Every person has the right to have his life respected...No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Article 5.1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected.
Article 7.1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.
Article 8.1. Every person has the right to a hearing... for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.
Article 11.1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized.
Article 24. All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.
Article 25. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights.34
Under the American Convention, Article 41 reflects the same functions as Article 9 and 9 (bis) in the Statute, with an important distinction between communications (complaints) and petitions. Submission of communications to the Commission and cases to the Court of Human Rights vary decidedly in regard to restrictions.
Under Article 44, “Any person or group of persons, or any nonGovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with this Commission containing denunciations or com¬plaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.”35 (Emphasis added.) To submit a case before the Court, however, only a State Party or the Commission has such right under Article 61.36
Where communications involve allegations by one State Party against another, Article 45 requires that at the time a State Party files its instrument of ratification of the Convention, it include a statement recognizing the competence of the Commission to consider such communications before the Commission will accept a State Party communication against another state party; similarly, under Article 62, the competence of the Court of Human Rights must be recognized by a State Party before decisions of the Court become binding upon that State Party.37
An Article 44 petition has a series of hurdles to over¬come before receiving full Commission attention. Article 46, §1, requires the exhaustion of domestic remedies and submission of the petition within six months of the date “the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.”38
An Article 44 petition must contain the name, national¬ity, profession, domicile, and signature of the petitioners or the legal representative. The requirements for exhaustion and six months’ period need not apply where, under Article 46, §2, there are no domestic remedies nor due process af¬forded by the state concerned in regard to the right alleg¬edly violated, the party making the allegation has been de¬nied access to the remedies or prevented from exhausting them, or there has been unwarranted delay in obtaining a final judgment.
If Article 46 requirements are not met, the facts do not tend to establish a violation, or the petition is “manifestly groundless or substantially like another case already stud¬ied by the Commission or another international body,” Ar¬ticle 47 provides for the Commission to find the petition inadmissible.39
However, once these barriers are overcome, a petition then undergoes a series of procedures under Articles 48 to 50: the cause may be settled or submitted to the Court of Human Rights, or the Commission may vote to take appro¬priate measures such as making recommendations to the state concerned or publishing a report on the matter.
Because only a State Party or the Commission may ap¬proach the inter-American Court, who that complainant would be becomes the paramount—and extremely political—question. Two state parties have clear standing to sue: the United States and Mexico. It is doubtful that the U.S. Government would implicate itself on a charge of a human rights violation. (In one of the first cases before the Court, however, Costa Rica itself initiated an inquiry. Government of Costa Rica, In the matter of Viviana Gallardo, et al. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Decision of Nov. 9, 1981, No. G101/81.) Mexico would face enormous political and economic considerations before taking action. Most likely, only the Commission would approach the Court.
Another approach involving the Court involves recourse to the advisory function of the Court. In order to determine the validity of issues stemming from interpretative prob¬lems related to internal domestic law or inter-American agreements, Article 64 specifically provides that any member State or the Commission “...may consult the Court regarding the interpretation of this Convention or of other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American States.40 (Emphasis added.) Such advisory jurisdiction may be invoked with regard to any state whether or not it recognizes the Court’s competence. Buergenthal, a mem¬ber of the Court, asserts that, though not binding, states may find it as difficult to disregard an advisory opinion as they would a judicial decision.41 In the realm of international affairs, the publicity such an event can generate might prove an effective means of seeking redress.
As a treaty, then, which falls clearly within the purview of American documents establishing obligations among na¬tions, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo must also be consid¬ered an inter-American document “...concerning the pro¬tection of human rights” and thus within the jurisdiction of the Commission and the Court. Certain questions need to be raised and resolved, such as: what is the nature and ex¬tent of the Treaty’s human rights protections, can Chicanos in fact have standing as claimants, and where do remedies lie, within the jurisdiction of the Commission, the Court or the OAS General Assembly? An American forum exists in which to do so and a document exists, however old, which warrants renewed attention and review with respect to the deprivation of human rights which the Mexican American is now experiencing in the United States.
Against this background of human rights thought and practice, the case of the Mexican American provides an unusual perspective for understanding and testing of the inter-American human rights system.
The Mexican American or Chicano was born on February 2, 1848, taking for his birth date the day on which the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed by U.S. and Mexican ambassadors in Mexico. The Chicano was a party, albeit a silent third party, to this international agreement whereby “those Mexicans” choosing not to elect formally the retention of Mexican citizenship obtained the full guarantees of U.S. citizenship. It was by virtue of the Treaty, through the operation of law, not birth, ownership of land, naturalization, or any other way, that the Mexican American came to be.
The Chicano’s juridical personality, then, stems from an international agreement: at the very least, this would confer upon the Chicano a rare if not unique status among inhabitants of the Americas. The scope of this paper did not permit inquiry into whether other identifiable racial/ethnic groups have come into existence in a similar way. The Treaties of Louisiana and the Floridas refer only to “the inhabitants” of the territories;42 the U.S. Supreme Court has found that American Indians, while U.S. citizens, have distinct juridical status as parties to treaties with the U.S. Government (U.S. v. Sandoval, 198 F.540 (1912).
Vigil v. U.S., 293 F.Supp. 1178 (1968), attempted to draw on civil rights statutes to regain control of land grants in New Mexico, but the claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The complaint cites the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo outside any human rights context and otherwise fails as “vague and gen¬eral”, at 1183.
The distinctiveness of the Chicano person was alluded to in In Re Rodriguez,43 one of less than a handful of cases cited in Shephard’s under the Treaty (9 Stat. 922) reaching the Supreme Court or District Courts based on other than a property claim. Rodriguez’ application did not fit the de¬scription of either a white or African as the immigration laws required. The Court noted that color or race had not been a condition for becoming a citizen; rather it had merely been used to distinguish the nature of rights permitted. (Statutory exclusion of Asians from becoming citizens through the naturalization process was upheld in In re Ah Yup, 5 Sawyer. 155, 1 Fed Cas. 22.) Rodriguez was granted citizenship essentially, the Court held, because under the Treaty of Guadalupe of Hidalgo, Mexicans were granted citi¬zenship status without regard for color or race and besides, Rodriguez had been a model American for more than 10 years as a resident of San Antonio.
A more famous case, for different reasons, provides an¬other perspective on the Chicano person. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 586 (1856), the Treaty was cited to show that the Constitution had not excluded “colored aliens from citizenship,” i.e., color of a certain kind was not a necessary quality to obtain citizenship. The grant or withholding of citizenship is the prerogative of Congress. In the case of the Mexican American, he obtained citizenship by virtue of Treaty powers, without regard to color or race, but certainly with regard to his identification with a national origin. Cases which have since sought to establish the character of the Mexican American as an identifiable ethnic group took no cognizance or had no knowledge of this fact, e.g., Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, L.Ed. 866 (1945); U.S. v. Texas, (E.D.Texas) 342 F.Supp. 24 (1971).
What this line of thought suggests, then, is that the Chicano may have special status with regard to domestic forums, but certainly should have special standing in inter¬national ones dedicated to the protection of human rights. Such a theory, of course, has yet to be tested in a domestic or international forum.
With regard to the latter avenues, the thrust of the analy¬sis here suggests that the international character of the harm inflicted upon Chicanos would constitute a basis for submit¬ting proposals for study by the Commission as well as peti¬tioning the Commission for redress of alleged violations. The doctrine of exhaustion, moreover, would indicate that redress of grievances in the area of human rights within the Americas be instituted in the inter-American arena before recourse to other international bodies.
Besides, while the United States is not technically bound by the Convention, it is not free of public scrutiny: the Con¬vention having gone into effect July 18, 1978, the United States cannot simply ignore the findings of a body duly es¬tablished by the Convention. The inter-American system is designed as a forum for bringing world scrutiny and opin¬ion to bear in as many ways as possible on the preservation and extension of human rights to all persons in the Ameri¬cas.
If, in fact, Chicanos are victims of conduct proscribed by treaty, they should have full recourse to its protections. In short, the inter-American system of human rights may constitute the next step in Mexican Americans’ continuing pursuit of the right to life and liberty.
Mexican Americans could gain access to inter-American forums through three principal means:
• under the Statute of the Commission on Human Rights, seek consideration of Chicano rights as top¬ics for Commission study,
• under the Regulations, file petitions, and,
• under the Convention, have the Commission con¬duct investigations and submit and/or publish re¬ports of a public nature, or bring a specific case be¬fore the Court of Human Rights.
Because domestic remedies must be followed through to some final judgment under the doctrine of exhaustion, cases must be carefully selected which in fact have reached a final determination or have been stymied or delayed at some point in the adjudicatory system within the United States (Article 46, §2) before a petition or case may be found admissible and either dealt with by the Commission or passed on to the Court.
An additional hurdle exists where the State Party must have filed, either with their instrument of ratification or some time since, a statement acceding to the competence of the Commission and the Court before communications related to that State Party may be accepted for consideration. The United States has signed and ratified the OAS Charter and is thus bound by the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. However, it is only a signatory at present to the American Convention (signed June 1, 1977). Until rati¬fication, it need not submit itself to adjudicatory proceed¬ings under the Court but it is still open to studies by the Commission and to submittal of petitions alleging human rights violations.
In order to give substance to the theory and analysis behind treaty and case law, philosophical and historical lit¬erature, at least one case should serve to indicate within the scope of this paper, the nature of Mexican American claims for redress of violations of their human right to life and liberty.
To provide some context for a lengthier recital of a specific case, the following is a brief chronological account of nine incidents which took place between 1973 and 1978 in cities, both large and small, throughout Texas:
Nov. 15, 1973 - Santos Rodriguez, 12, shot once in the head while a police officer held a revolver to his head inside a police squad car during questioning about a burglary. The officer, Darrell Cain, was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.
Sept. 14, 1975 - Richard Morales, the case history, will be described in detail below.
May 5, 1977 - Joe Campos Torres, 23, Houston, death by drowning while in the custody of Houston police officers. Two officers, Terry Denson and Stephen Orlando, were convicted in state court of criminally negligent homicide, a misdemeanor, after being tried for murder. In a district court trial, these two and a third officer, Joseph Janish, were found guilty of civil rights violations and sentenced to 10-year suspended sentences (maximum penalty for such violations is life in prison); each had to serve one year for misdemeanor violations.
May 18, 1977 - Juan Deloz Zuniga, 33, a Mexican national in Odessa, killed in the Hudspeth County jail when struck by a homemade club made from a pool cue. The grand jury no billed Sheriff Clayton Hutchins in the incident.
Nov. 6, 1977 - Tiburcio Santome, in his early 30s, Garden City, shot four times while in the custody of sheriffs’ officers, after being arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct at a church festival. The grand jury did not return an indictment against either Sheriff Royce Pruitt or a friend, G.B. Thurwanger, who fired the pistol.
Dec. 8, 1977 - Juan Galaviz, 19, Big Spring, shot once in the head, after allegedly attempting to abduct the wife of a college basketball coach during a game. The grand jury did not return an indictment against Sgt. LeRoy Spires, who fired the gun.
Jan. 22, 1978 - Larry Ortega Lozano, 22, Pecos, dead of a crushed larynx while in the Ector County jail. a six-member jury panel ruled the death an accident and the Ector County grand jury took no action against any of the officers implicated, Sheriff Elton Faught and his deputies.
Jan. 22, 1978 - Danny Vasquez, 17, Moon City (El Paso County), shot once by a shotgun in the hands of Deputy Sheriff Sergio Guzman. The grand jury returned a no bill in the case.44
The case of Richard Morales, a resident of Castroville, a small town just west of San Antonio across the Bexar County line into Medina County, is cited in U.S. v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811 (1979). Perhaps it suffices as an introduction to the incident to quote the opening sentence of 5th Circuit Judge Fay’s opinion: “This case involves an outrageous episode in law enforcement.” at 815.
Although the events leading to Morales’ death began at 10:30 PM on Sept. 14, 1975, with a call by Frank Hayes, then Castroville Chief of Police, to an officer, Donald McCall, to pick up Morales on misdemeanor arrest warrants, the background dates back much longer.
Morales had been in trouble with Castroville police be¬fore. The warrants Hayes referred to (actually satisfied by Morales by an appearance at a court hearing two days ear¬lier) were on charges of failure to deliver several cows he had sold. Hayes suspected Morales of having stolen a stereo and television set and sent McCall to get the serial num¬bers—actually Morales had rented the items in San Antonio. In short, Hayes had already been at odds with Morales, and perhaps for some time.
This hostility was borne out when Hayes, arriving at Morales’ home in his personal car accompanied by Dennis Dunford, his brother-in-law, called Morales, according to witnesses, a “thieving son of a bitch”, told him he was going to kill him and struck him in the stomach several times with his fist. at 815.
Finally, after a ride of several miles out to a deserted gravel road in Hayes’ own car, Hayes, with Dunford still in tow, stopped his car, obtained a 12 gauge shotgun from McCall and struck Morales with the breach of the shotgun. All the while, Hayes kept telling Morales he was going to kill him. Hayes sent McCall away, back up the road. Report¬edly, then, Hayes shoved the shotgun at Morales again, Mo¬rales pushed it away and stepped back. The shotgun dis¬charged, killing him.
Hayes then went back up the road to McCall, told him Morales had escaped and to inform the Sheriff’s office. Hayes returned to the scene and, with Dunford’s help, loaded the body onto the rear floorboards of his car. Hayes drove to his home, picked up his wife, Alice Foley Hayes (also a de¬fendant), who with Haves and Dunford drove outside of Castroville, placed the body in the car trunk and returned home.
Mrs. Hayes daughter then joined her mother in driving to San Antonio where they picked up her sister, Alice Baldwin, also a defendant. All three then drove some 400 miles to Panola County near the Louisiana border, where after buy¬ing some shovels on the way, they buried Morales’ body in a shallow grave. By the time they returned to Ms. Baldwin’s home in Llano County, local authorities arrested them as they were trying to dispose of bloody garbage bags and shov¬els.
Tried January 1976 in San Angelo, Tom Green County, after a change of venue, on a charge of murder, Hayes was found guilty of aggravated assault and sentenced to 10 years in prison, of which he might have served a minimum of 18 months.
However, on a Federal Grand Jury indictment, Hayes was tried in September 1977, having been charged with viola¬tion of 18 U.S.C. §242 by depriving Richard A. Morales of the right to liberty by due process of law, resulting in his death. After a change of venue from the San Antonio Divi¬sion of the Western District of Texas to the Waco Division, he was found guilty on Sept. 19, 1977, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
On appeal, perhaps the most telling affirmation by the 5th Circuit was its upholding of the rule that no constitu¬tional bar exists to successive state and federal prosecutions for the same criminal conduct, the “dual prosecution” or Petite Policy rule. Under this policy, the Justice Department provides that defendants will not be prosecuted for federal offenses arising from the same act except when there is a compelling federal interest and approval of an Assistant Attorney General.
Then Attorney General Griffin Bell had decided at one point not to prosecute Hayes in federal court but had reversed his decision. The Court held that this did not constitute discriminatory prosecution against Hayes, noting:
Those individuals caught in the net of increased awareness and sensitivity to particular classes of crimes cannot justify their conduct by noting that at the time of their illegal activity, the community was more tolerant of similar transgressions. at 818.
What had happened during the period of Morales’ death and the case reaching the Circuit Court was that Chicano and general public pressure had forced Attorney General Bell into reviewing the Petite Policy and public awareness had indeed forced closer attention to the administration of justice in Morales’ behalf.
Similarly, appellant Hayes argued that the disparity be¬tween his sentence and that of others in factually similar cases mandated a reduction of his sentence. The Court held that, unless abuse of discretion by the district is shown, the sentence would stand. And it did.
In light of the continual violence being inflicted on Mexican Americans throughout the Southwest, the most significant finding posited by this paper is that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is in fact an international human rights document, extending guarantees through the decades which have not been asserted on an international level. Moreover, for the first time in the Americas a system for addressing violations of basic individual rights is in place which provides several means by which persons in the Americas can seek redress.
The Chicano community, by virtue of its origins in an international agreement in which it had no say at the time may not only hold U.S. citizenship, but a form of standing in certain international forums. Whether the Mexican American may seek redress in intern-American forums by virtue of this dual status has yet to be tested. Thus, while the doctrine of exhaustion may apply to the Chicano domestically, his international status may suggest a way to short-circuit a judicial system which has failed to address his claims against injustice except when a judge faces a situation so “outrageous” that it cries for vindication.
Many questions have been raised in this paper, which suggest various courses of action. The American Convention on Human Rights through its operational branches, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, holds the answer to many of these questions. Finding the suitable case, the most fitting approach, and the appropriate forum to deal with a petition or issue will require considerable effort on the part of many persons.
Many areas of research, moreover, have been indicated in this paper as well which would provide information on related facets of the history of the Mexican American from a juridical standpoint. Legal research into the land grants issue, educational deprivation, employment exploitation, and other elements of the Mexican American experience should help fill out what is known about “those Mexicans” who stayed on this side of the new border with Mexico 134 years ago.
The more that is discovered about the international as well as domestic status of the Chicano the greater will be the opportunity to redress the kinds of injustice inflicted on a Richard Morales. While Morales’ death has been vindicated at one level, the cases of many more Moraleses have not, nor have their families gained restitution, nor has the community of Mexican Americans obtained full redress. Perhaps it is only at the international level that such redress can be obtained for the Chicano, this offspring of war and Treaty.

1. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 9 Stat. 922; T.S. 207; 9 Bevans 791, signed Feb. 2, 1848, went into force, May 30, 1848.
For Spanish text, Algunos Documentos sobre el Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo, Archivo Histórico Diplomático Mexicano, No. 31, ed. Antonio de la Peña y Reyes. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, México, D.F., 1930. p.115.
2. Shephard’s contains more than 150 citations to the Treaty, of which some 45 cases cite to Articles VIII and IX alone.
3. McKinney v. Saviego, 59 U.S. 240 (1855), Basse v. Brownsville, 154 U.S. 610 (1875), Amaya v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., (D.CS.D. Tex) 62 F.Supp. 181 (1945).
4. Baldwin v. Frank, (Tex.Supp.) 31 S.W. 1064, af’d 26 S.W. 155 (1852), the Texas Act of 1850 does not discriminate between U.S. and Mexican citizens, so does not violate Treaty Article VIII which simply guarantees property rights, the same protection afforded to all U.S. citizens.
5. Chadwick v. Campbell, 115 F.2d 402 (1940), equality with other property owners in having ad valorem taxes assessed against land grant.
6. Documentary History of the Mexican Americans, ed. Wayne Moquin, Bantam Books, New York, 1971. p. 246.
7. Cue Canovas, Agustin, Los Estados Unidos y El México Olvidado, Arno Press, New York, 1976. p. 133-37.
8. Documents of American History, ed. Henry S. Commager, F.S. Crofts and Co., New York, 1941. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, p. 83. “That they (the inhabitants of the English colonies in North America) are entitled to life, liberty and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.”
9. Ibid. p. 100.
10. U.S.C.A. Const. Art., Am. Art. XIV.
11. Ibid. Art. 2, §2.
12. Ibid. Art. VI.
13. Under 42 U.S.C.A. §1983, any person who under color of law deprives any citizen of the United States of his constitutional rights as “secured by the Constitution and laws (read Treaties as well) shall be liable to the person injured in an action of law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress.”
14. Noriega, Alfonso C. La naturaleza de las garantías individuales en la Constitución de 1917, Ciudad Universitaria, México, 1967, p. 97.
15. Ibid. p. 111.
16. Burgoa, Ignacio. Las Garantías Individuales, Editorial Porrua, S.A., México, 1981. p. 119.
“La felicidad del pueblo y de cada uno de los ciudadanos consiste en el goce de la igualdad, seguridad, propiedad, y libertad. La integra conservación de estos derechos es el objeto de la institución de los gobiernos y el único fin de las asociaciones políticas.” (Emphasis added.)
17. Ibid. p. 134.
“...una declaración de que una ley fijaría las garantías de libertad, seguridad, propiedad, e igualdad en favor de todos los habitantes de la República.” (Emphasis added.)
18. Constitución Política de Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Secretaría de Gobernación, Tomo 1, p. 13.
“Nadie podía ser privado de la vida, de la libertad o de las propiedades, posesiones o derechos sino mediante juicio seguido ante los tribunales previamente establecidos en el que cumplan las formalidades esenciales del procedimiento y conforme a las leyes expedidas con anterioridad al hecho.”
19. Moquin, p. 246.
20. Ibid. p. 247.
21. de la Peña y Reyes, p. 122-23.
22. Ibid. p. 121-22.
23. Ibid. p. 122.
24. Commager: for the Louisiana Treaty, p. 190; for the Floridas Treaty, p. 223.
25. de la Peña y Reyes, p. 138.
26. Contardo, Sergio. “Reflexiones sobre los Derechos Humanos,” Revista Chilena de Derecho, Feb. 1978, Vol. 5. p. 33.
“Como consecuencia de su reconocimiento constitucional podían derivarse numerosas disposiciones legales que tiendan a protegerla; a sancionar su violación injusta y a crear condiciones adecuadas para su mejor ejercicio.”
27. Ibid. p. 34.
“A nadie puede impedírsele el ejercicio de estos derechos porque ello significa, indirectamente, atentar contra su derecho a la vida.”
28. Basic Documents on International Protection of Human Rights, ed. Sohn, Louis B. and Buergenthal, Thomas. Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York, 1973. p. 1.
29. Ibid. p. 31-34.
30. Ibid. p. 187.
31. Ibid. p. 188-92.
32. Ibid. p. 196-97.
33. Ibid. p. 199.
34. Ibid. p. 209-218.
35. Ibid. p. 223.
36. Ibid. p. 229.
37. Ibid. p. 229.
38. Ibid. p. 224.
39. Ibid. p. 224-25.
40. Ibid. p. 230.
41. Buergenthal, Thomas. “Inter-American System for Protection of Human Rights,” unpublished paper, revised July 1981, p. 39.
42. See page 8, infra.
43. In Re Rodriguez, 81 F. 350-51, D.C.W.D.Texas (1897).
44. “Nine Incidents Cited by Mexican Americans,” Dan Watson, Dallas Morning News article, July 16, 1978.

Appendix A
The following are extracted from the Archivos de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (ASRE) in Mexico, identifying references in the ASRE files of incidents involving violence against Mexican Americans:
1-11-1110 Persecution of mexicanos in U.S. in late 1870s
1-12-1400 Persecution and death of mexicanos in U.S.
1-15-1731 Mexican bandoleros against U.S., Caso El Alamo 1891
2-12-2904 Mistreatment of mexicanos in California in 1870s
2-13-2975 Persecution of mexicanos in 1870s
2-13-2976 Persecution of mexicanos in 1870s
11-2-106 Persecution of mexicanos in 1870s
11-511 Persecution of mexicanos in 1870s
12-3-37 Persecution in Texas in 1880s, Caso del Rio
12-13-48 Complaints by Mexican consuls in 1850s
12-13-50 Complaints by Mexican consuls in 1850s
18-27-3 Expulsion of mexicanos, Caso Shafter 1890
18-27-34 Expulsion of mexicanos in 1880s
18-27-114 Attacks against Mexican residents, Caso El Hijo
18-27-128 Abuses of mexicanos in late 1880s
28-27-126 Eight mexicanos killed in Wyoming 1889
730-2 Mexican killed in Duval, Texas
3743-14 Mexican repatriation due to persecution 1880s

10-H-1-7 Mexicans recruited to fight on both sides of Civil War

Page 262 Raimundo de la Mota and eight others in Calaveras County, Cal., robbed and forced off their land under threat of being lynched
Page 263 Claims against confiscation of ranches, mistreatment by civil authorities, lynchings (e.g., robbery, assault with four businessmen killed in February 1853 in Roma, Texas)

Source: Zorilla, Luis G., Historia de las Relaciones entre México y los Estados Unidos de América, 1800-1958, Editorial Porrua, S.A. México, 1965.

No comments: