As a presidential candidate, my view on immigration is quite simple, practically pragmatic, progressive and comprehensive in the utilitarian and millennia sense.

The simple fact that Mexicans – being of pre-Columbian descent, are an indigenous group that was once local to the south and the western part of the United States, qualifies them to be looked at as an independent group outside the Latino label. I will therefore grant them indigenous rights.

If we look at Alamo, as an example of an event that affected indigenous population that was local to that particular battle theatre, then consider the ferocity of the push – deeper into Mexican territory, we’ll see, that rather than being allowed the option of citizenship – as was optioned to some American Indians, the local indigenous population (ancestors of these people) were forcibly displaced by the nature of war fought by the expanding Union.

So, to most Mexicans, a trip to what we called the United States today, is like a return to their ancestral land. Therefore, it is most rational to look at these hardworking people the way we look at Cuban exiles – a group that have thrived well outside the Latino and Hispanic label.

But if we keep going Latino! Latinos! on immigration, and look at “toda Latinos” from the eyes of their political leaders – most of whom are of Spanish Galician/Catalan descent, we’ll be applying Greco-Roman standard to a set of people that have nothing in common to these two European groups. And we’ll be denying a majority of indigenous people who were once local to the United States their natural right of return to a land that was once their ancestors.

Double jeopardy by way of war and colonization is at play here. Why make it worse by an old immigration system that seems out of sync with the millennia? Granting “indigenous rights” to Mexicans already in the United States and placing them outside the Latino label is something I will do as president elect. It is the most ethical thing to do before building a wall. And even if I have to build a border wall, it will be in the form of new urban communities and productive border settlements – as proposed and penned out in my previous post last year.

The Pharaoh’s did it to the Jewish immigrants in Egypt. King Solomon did it for immigrants residing in his domain in the Bible. The King of England used the same approach to address issues of legal status faced by the British Jewry – when he designated them “the King’s visitors” when the British parliament, the land Barons, the Lords and manor Lords ganged up to deny them a legal status, talk less of British citizenship.

Worse, if we look at them from Donald Trump’s public options, then we are not too far from a modern day “trail of tears”. Sad things is, Trump’s ancestors were not here to witness “the trail of tears” the forced displacement of “Alamo” and neither was any of his ancestors here to experience the battle for independence at Fort McHenry. He doesn’t know any better.