


































Krystal Leach de Amante


 
 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 169-175) 

American Attitudes toward Mexican Immigration 
 
 

Krystal Leach de Amante 
Department of Sociology 

California State University, Los Angeles 
 
 

In this article, the author recognizes the negative sentiments many 
Americans have towards Mexican immigrants, despite their historical 
roots in this nation and their economical contributions to American 
society.  The questionable manner in which the acquisition of Texas and 
other states through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo are discussed.  
Mexcian immigrants later played a pivotal role in sustaining economic 
activity as the U.S. focused on World War I & II, but their labor was often 
exploited through low pay and long hours.  Even in modern times, 
American citizens have not developed an appreciation for the 
contributions of the Mexican immigrant and are seeking ways to limit 
their migration into the United States.   

 
 

1Since the beginning of the Mexican-
American War, this county has had an 
interesting and conflicted relationship 
with Mexico.  This could be a direct 
result of the history behind how certain 
originally Mexican territories became 
part of the United States or the fact that 
it borders so closely  to Mexico.  Either 
way,  it is interesting that many 
American citizens have negativeattitudes 
toward Mexican immigration, despite 
the fact that many states in the U.S. are 
actually former territories of Mexico. 

 Knowing this, one may ask, 
“What gives these states and their 
citizens the right to exclude Mexicans 
from entering the US in search of their 
                                                 
Krystal Leach de Amante is an undergraduate 
student in the Department of Sociology. Her 
paper was originally submitted to SOC. 348 
Class, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender, taught by Dr. 
Hyojoung Kim in Winter 2011. 

own economic freedom or otherwise?”  
This question is especially pertinent 
given the fact that the foundation of 
America was built on the idea of 
providing the freedom to actualize one’s 
own idea of economic and political 
success.  However, taking into 
consideration the current climate of 
protest towards Mexican immigration, 
the ideology of freedom for all does not 
actually apply to everyone.   An 
interesting method of assessing and 
evaluating such negative attitudes would 
be to take a step backwards in time and 
analyzing some defining moments of 
America’s involvement with its boarding 
neighbor. 

Besides many American’s belief 
in having “Devine Right”, the god-given 
privilege to inhabit land and develop it 
according to one’s needs, regardless of 
the original inhabitants wishes, the 



MEXICAN IMMIGRATION by Krystal Leach de Amante 170 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 169-175) 

Mexican-American War actually found 
its roots in the Texas War of 
Independence.  During the 1820s and 
30s, a newly independent Mexico sought 
out willing settlers to occupy and 
develop its northern territories. 
American settlers came by the thousands 
to take advantage of this opportunity. 
They moved into the Mexican province 
of Texas, took an oath to the country, 
and even converted to its religion, 
Catholicism. 

However, soon after the newly 
converted “Texicans” or “Texians” 
moved onto the land, they became 
disgruntled with the way the Mexican 
government ran the province, ultimately 
resulting in their revolt against the 
country.  In 1836, only one year after the 
bloody revolt began, the Mexican 
president, while in captivity by the 
“Texicans," unwillingly signed the 
Treaty of Velasco, thus giving Texas its 
independence.  But neither the Mexican 
citizens nor their government recognized 
this “Treaty” because it was brought into 
fruition by force.   

The now Republic of Texas 
continued to engage in hostilities toward 
Mexico.  Then on July 4, 1845, in an 
effort of retaliation, the republic 
officially became a part of the United 
States.  As a result of this annexation, 
Mexico brought troops to the “border” in 
an effort to reclaim the land that was 
originally part of its province in Texas. 
On April 25, 1846, U.S. and Mexican 
troops clashed with one another, 
officially leading the two nations into the 
Mexican-American War. 

It is important to note that there 
are suspicions that the U.S. had backed 
the Republic of Texas’ revolt against 
Mexico from the very beginning.  A 

theory that some argue were typical of 
America’s thought of “Devine Right” to 
rule.  Regardless though, it is easy to 
recognize the unscrupulous manner in 
which Mexico was forced to sign the 
Treaty of Valsco, thus having its land 
essentially usurped from them. 

Over the course of a brutal two-
year military campaign, the Americans 
seized various Mexican territories to 
include Texas, parts of California and at 
last Mexico City.  By this point the 
Mexican army was tired, beaten, and 
ready to surrender in defeat to the might 
of the American military.  On February 
2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo was signed.  This peace treaty in 
effect would be responsible for aiding 
American arrogance toward the 
achievement of its wayward prophecy of 
Divine Right, which is still a prevalent 
attitude today, as seen in the prevailing 
attitudes toward immigration. 

The Treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo resulted in Mexico losing 55% 
of its prewar territory, including the 
Republic of Texas.  The U.S. agreed to 
pay Mexico 15 million dollars for all or 
parts of what are now known as 
California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, 
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and 
Kansas.  In addition, the U.S. assumed 
over 3.5 million dollars of Mexican debt.  
The treaty also had a clause protecting 
the sale or transfer of land deeds already 
owned by Mexican citizens prior to the 
war, however, this agreement was later 
not honored by the U.S. government. 

An important note to make here 
is that the United States was allowed to 
dishonor this agreement with Mexico 
regarding the land deeds, which then 
begs the question; “How many 'illegal' 
aliens’ might have actually been legal 



MEXICAN IMMIGRATION by Krystal Leach de Amante 171 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 169-175) 

benefactors to these land deeds if 
America had lived up to its original 
agreement with Mexico?”  Of course 
there is no logical way of determining 
this, but it is interesting to note that 20 
percent of Mexico’s population actually 
resided in the territories that were 
handed over to the U.S. via The Treaty 
of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 

By the 1850s, the newly 
purchased “California” had increased 
fruit production and a source of labor 
was sought to harvest and work the 
crops, aiding in bolstering the U.S. 
economy.  Given the proximity of 
Mexico to the “golden state”, it was easy 
to hire Mexican migrate workers to carry 
out the grueling, backbreaking work.  
Within a 30-year period, an estimated 
80,000 Mexicans immigrated to what 
was formerly their land to perform labor-
intensive work for meager wages. 

Then again in 1890, Mexican 
workers were brought on to work on the 
construction of the railroads.  A 
whopping 60 percent of the total railroad 
workforce was comprised of Mexicans.  
In the 1900s, during World War I, when 
many of the nations men were off to 
war, Mexicans were hired on in large 
droves to work as machinist, mechanics, 
painters and plumbers; in effect,  helping 
to sustain the U.S. economy during its 
overseas military campaigns. 

However, many of the Mexican 
workers were subjected to abuse at the 
hands of their U.S. employers.  So in 
1920, their government drew up 
contracts that specified work hours, 
wages, designated place of employment 
and also permitted them to bring along 
their families.  Thereafter, no Mexican 
worker was allowed to leave the U.S. 
without a contract. 

Four years later, the U.S. Border 
Patrol was created, which inadvertently 
lead to a harsher life for Mexicans 
migrating to America for work.  The 
inception of the border patrol now made 
anyone without a contract “illegal-
aliens." 

It is important to note that during 
this same period of time, the U.S. was 
going through an economic depression.  
Therefore, one could deduce that the 
invention of the U.S. Border Patrol was 
a mere tactic employed to downsize the 
amount of outside labor (Mexicans) in 
order to make room for unemployed 
Americans.  Or at the very least, it 
calmed dissenting Americans from 
complaining that all the U.S. jobs were 
being taken by the foreigners(i.e. 
Mexicans). 

But when the U.S. went to war 
again in 1942 (WWII),  it conveniently 
relaxed its border laws, letting in 
Mexican workers by the droves in order 
to support the war effort.  “The Bracero 
Program” was enacted, which allowed 
more than 4 million legal Mexican 
workers to enter the United States as 
farm hands.  However, once again, many 
of the ranchers took advantage of the 
language barrier, allowing Spanish-
speaking workers to sign contracts 
written in English that stipulated unfair 
conditions.  Some of the conditions 
included only allowing workers to return 
home for emergencies and only after 
having received the expressed consent of 
their employers. 

But history would soon repeat 
itself as the war came to a close and 
returning service members sought 
employment.  The U.S once again 
enacted legislation barring Mexican 



MEXICAN IMMIGRATION by Krystal Leach de Amante 172 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 169-175) 

labor with the “Employment Farm Labor 
Service.” 

It is interesting to note here that 
regardless of the historical fact that 
Mexican workers helped sustain the U.S. 
economy during its time of need, many 
of the states who benefited most still feel 
no obligation toward these laborers.  
Ironically, it appears that the vicious 
cycle is occurring once again as the 
American economy is undergoing a 
recession many of its citizens, especially 
those closest to the border, now feel that 
Mexican labor is a threat to their own 
livelihood.  And a result, these states 
who benefited most from “illegal” 
Mexican labor during the economic 
boom now want to bar them from having 
access to U.S. jobs and citizenship. 

Ironically, every time the 
Mexican workers came to the U.S.,  they 
were not only paid unfairly low wages, 
but suffered other abuses as well.  
Therefore, it would be fair to say that 
these workers were exploited by the 
American industry and then thrown out 
of its borders when they were no longer 
needed, only to return to poverty-like 
conditions in Mexico. 

After taking a brief look at the 
U.S.’ relationship with its southern 
bordering neighbor, it is easy to 
conclude that the illegal acquisition of 
Mexico’s land and the exploitation of its 
labor force was a major factor leading to 
America’s economic prosperity.  It 
would be interesting to take an in depth 
look at how America and it's citizenry 
have expressed their appreciation to 
Mexicans. 

According to the U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
website, in 2008 Congress provided the 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE) with significant 
funding to carryout the mission of 
improving and modernizing efforts to 
identifying “aliens” convicted of a 
crime, sentenced to imprisonment, and 
who may be deportable, and removing 
them from the United States once they 
are judged deportable.  This program is 
called “Secured Communities”, part of 
the government’s effort to ensure the 
safety of Americans from the threat and 
violence of Mexican criminals.   

Some of the program’s 
advertised benefits include reducing the 
“opportunity” for allegations of racial 
and ethnic profiling, providing more 
accurate identification of criminals based 
on biometrics, improving officer safety, 
and making more information available 
for improved investigative purposes.  In 
addition, the program allows fingerprints 
taken at county jails to be directly 
inputted to a federal immigration 
database. 
 Even though the program’s 
mission states that it targets what the 
government calls “Criminal Aliens” or 
those immigrants who can be deported 
because of crimes that they have 
committed, its opponents say otherwise. 
 For example, New America 
Media, a governmental watchdog in the 
interest of ethnic minorities, upon closer 
inspection of the Secured Community 
program believes it reveals otherwise.  
They make this complaint about the 
Department of Homeland Security:   

DHS includes people simply 
“charged” with a crime in its 
definition of “criminal aliens.” 
People are labeled criminals 
before they are given a chance to 
defend themselves in court. A 



MEXICAN IMMIGRATION by Krystal Leach de Amante 173 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 169-175) 

cornerstone of our criminal 
system is that a person is 
innocent until proven guilty. Yet 
under Secure Communities, 
people are put into deportation 
proceedings even if they are 
innocent of criminal charges or if 
the arrest was simply a pretext to 
check a person’s immigration 
status.  
The organization also believes 

that the lack of due process will 
ultimately result in racial profiling and 
“abusive agents” will not suffer any 
consequences for their actions.  

DHS does not collect data that 
would reveal whether racial 
profiling is happening. The 
attempt to divorce police 
officers’ motivations for 
arresting individuals and DHS’ 
subsequent actions after the 
booking phase makes no sense. 
As the program is currently 
designed, a police officer can 
make a pre-textual arrest and 
later drop the charges, but an 
individual can still be placed into 
deportation proceedings. 
Thus far, Secured Communities 

has been implemented in 27 states with 
an estimated 279,000 people deported 
and of those, 79,000 are from California 
alone.  Nearly half of California’s 58 
counties have enacted the program, 
including all of the Bay Area except 
Napa and Marin.  
 It would appear that once again 
Mexicans are being singled out for 
deportation from the U.S. but this time 
with the aid of technology---a biometric 
database.  But for some Americans this 
system is not effective enough.  On July 
29, the state of Arizona, which once 

belonged to Mexico, took federal law 
into its own hands and enacted SB1070.   
 This controversial law requires 
that the police, while enforcing other 
laws, check the legal status of 
individuals whom they suspect of being 
illegal.  The new Arizona law, similar to 
the DHS’ Secured Communities 
Program, states that racial profiling will 
not be used during its enforcement.  
However, from the first day of the law’s 
inception people have touted it as being 
inherently racist.  In fact, the Department 
of Justice filed suit against Arizona, 
promising to keep a vigilant watch over 
the state to further ensure against racial 
profiling.  All together though, the DOJ 
is not pleased with Arizona’s new law, 
accusing the state of overstepping its 
boundaries.    

“There is big difference between 
a state or locality saying they are not 
going to use their resources to enforce a 
federal law…and a state passing its own 
immigration policy that actively 
interferes with federal law. That’s what 
Arizona did in this case,” said Tracy 
Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney 
General. 

The mastermind behind SB1070, 
Arizona Senator Russell Pierce, is 
currently drafting up legislation that will 
require illegal immigrants to pay for 
their children’s schooling and deny birth 
certificates of infants born to illegal 
immigrant parents.  And now there are at 
least 20 other states that are considering 
Arizona-style immigration laws. 

Ironically these same harsh, 
discriminatory and racist laws come 
from states that not only officially 
belonged to Mexico prior to the illegal 
signing of the Treaty of Velasco, but 
from the very states that mainly 



MEXICAN IMMIGRATION by Krystal Leach de Amante 174 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 169-175) 

benefited from the cheap labor providing 
by Mexican immigrants during 
America’s turbulent times, i.e. World 
War’s I & II.  In fact, one could 
rightfully question where these states 
would be economically if it were not for 
the toil of the Mexican worker. 

Another disturbing phenomena in 
Arizona, Texas and California (states 
who have benefited the most from these 
workers) are the terrorist-like tactics of 
“Minutemen”.  These groups with their 
Neo-Nazis ideals consider themselves 
American patriots whose mission is to 
“protect” the nation’s borders by taking 
the law into their own hands.  

Armed with semiautomatic rifles, 
leader Jason “JT” Ready and his band of 
fellow armed vigilantes patrol the 
Arizona border in search of immigrants 
attempting to cross illegally.  Ready 
feels that Arizona’s 1870 and the Obama 
Administration efforts to decrease illegal 
immigration is not enough, which is 
where paramilitary group fits into the 
picture.   

“The US Border Guard volunteer 
Border Rangers AKA 'Ready's Rangers', 
will keep patrolling the Sonoran desert 
for Narco-terrorists and securing the 
border. That's what we do. The 
dangerous job nobody else is willing to 
do,” he told the Associated Press. 

Again it is interesting to note that 
a Ready and his “Rangers” reside in a 
state that has historically benefited 
directly from the fruits of labor provided 
by the same Mexican immigrants they 
now feel the need to block from coming 
into the country.  Unfortunately, it is this 
exact kind of attitude that is becoming 
more prevalent amongst American 
citizenry.   

It is as if the people of the United 

States to include the elected officials 
need a history lesson on not only how 
the bread basket of this country 
(California, Arizona, Nevada, etc) 
became part of America, but also on the 
important, undeniable role Mexicans 
have played in building this nation from 
scratch.  Maybe then American attitudes 
toward Mexican immigration will 
change for the better. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

http://gawker.com/tag/readysrangers/


MEXICAN IMMIGRATION by Krystal Leach de Amante 175 
 

 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 169-175) 

REFERENCES 
 

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!. New 
York: W.W Norton & Company, 
Inc, 2009. 

KTU. 2010. 28 Aug. 2010 
http://www.katu.com/news/natio
nal/98667099.html. 

Lee, Roger A. The History Guy. 2010. 
28 Aug. 2010 
http://www.historyguy.com/Mexi
can-American_War.html. 

New America Media. 2010. 28 Aug. 
2010 
http://news.newamericamedia.or
g/news/view_article.html. 

PBS. 2010. 28 Aug. 2010 
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/thebord
er/history/index.html. 

 

 


