I can tell none of you made it through the 15 pages this paper constitutes as you have used the argument of 'Native Americans' that is directly addressed within it. I've pasted it below so you can read it.
"The illegality of crossing the border without permission cannot be argued, and could be the Achilles? heel in the case for the validity of an expanding Spanish language in the United States. However, a different light can be placed on the issue of border integrity in itself. As an American, imagine in the year 2015, if China were to invade the Eastern seaboard of an economically depressed United States. They would take it over, populate it with their citizens, use Chinese and expect Americans to learn it. Fast forward 100 years, and the reader is an American living in Nebraska. He wishes to travel to Washington DC but cannot get his visa from the Chinese government to do so. He views the land as stolen, and this is what he was taught in school, so instead he just crosses the border and goes there. He speaks English with people who still speak English 100 years later, identify as American and generally have not assimilated. Is this wrong? Why would he respect the territorial integrity of a country that did not respect the territorial integrity of his? Why would the conquered population care to adopt the language or cultural morÃ©s or conquerors they see as illegitimate? This is a glimpse of the moral viewpoint of Mexicans, and many Chicanos in the USA on the issue of border crossing. They are unmoved by the ?crocodile tears? of the Americans who believe their country is being invaded. From their view, it already happened to them, and thus they have no respect for the legality of a border that was created in an unjust, violent and illegal manner.
While two wrongs do not make a right, another extremely compelling counter argument also actually bolsters the prior argument in itself. This would be that all Americans regardless of specific European origin are invaders of a Native American land, and thus no group has any right to truly be here. Expanding this logic, if we were to grant a special privilege for any language it would have to be a Native American one. This argument is fantastic as obviously no one is packing up their bags and heading back to Europe. It doesn't weaken but actually strengthens the argument for bilingualism, as well as justifies undocumented Mexican immigration. Firstly, in the relationship of bilingualism with the Amerindians, many don't realize that it is indeed maintained. The Indian reservations have their native tongue as the official one and usually English alongside it. Further, in counties where there is a substantial Amerindian population, services are provided in those languages, as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs offering communication in Indian languages should it be desired.
Secondly, within the Mexican population, an overwhelming majority (80%) are of mixed race descent, European and Amerindian ancestry. With the mean ancestry of Mestizo (Mixed-Race) Mexicans as genetically 58.96% European, 31.05% "Asian" (Amerindian), and 10.03% African [Zolezzi NP]; of this, the most substantial Amerindian ethnic contribution is Aztec descent. The term 'Aztec' is synonymous with Mexican identity itself, even the name Mexico is derivation of term 'Mexica' which was the Aztec language term for the Aztec civilization [Andrews 500]. Native Americans and First Nations people in the United States and Canada are given the right to inhabit in either country as the borders of each are artificial to them. This is further justified in that indigenous language groups in Canada are also found in the contiguous United States, confirming a shared lineage and rights of residency in either country. If this right is granted to the Native Americans of Canada and the USA, how could the right of 'Aztec-Americans' in the form of modern Mexicans to travel between either side of the border be rejected? Especially considering that only 2.5% of Anglo-Americans carry any native blood [DNA TRIBES NP], compared to the overwhelming majority of Mexicans. Further, the ancestral birth place of the Aztec people is Aztlan as defined in their oral traditional and codices. Many scholars suspect Aztlan was located in the modern Southwestern United States and not in modern Mexico. This would be confirmed by the fact that Native American linguists found the widest distribution of Uto-Aztec speakers nearly one-hundred miles north of the US border, distributed between Southern California to mid Oregon, East to mid Idaho and South to Colorado; while the language was virtually non-existent south of this region until the deserts of modern Sonora down to its highest concentration in the region that surrounds modern Mexico City then known as Tenochtitlan. (In Search of Aztlan NP)
This being the case modern Mexicans have a greater ancestral right to inhabitance of or passage through the American Southwest than Anglo-Americans do, and this right would be consistent with the current policy of the US administration towards Native Americans. In addition, it is a far more recent and genetically based claim to an 'ancestral homeland' than that of Israel, whose populace is far less semitic than the Mexicans are Aztec [Katnelson NP], as well as being more than 2000 years separated from their ?homeland?. With the United States' shameless support for Israel on board the UN Security Council and geo-political military map, it would seem an aversion to recognition of a historical right to Aztlan as entirely hypocritical. Such an aversion would be logically inconsistent with two current policies, and thus an illogical rejection of it, may reflect the rising anti-hispanic prejudice described previously."