In this week’s readings, Gamio centered that the problems of Mexico were that it did not address its fusion. It does not look at both sides of its cause. It is built solely upon the Spaniard when the Indian makes up more than half of its population. Gamio states that the idea of Mexico’s constitution of 57’ is completely outdated, and I definitely agree. He also focuses on the question of whether or not millions of people from different ethnic backgrounds can converge under the same umbrella of law. It is definitely questionable, how can the Indian respect and feel patriotic in a land where the laws overlook him and his people? Especially when these laws were established to disenfranchise a whole group of people. He further notes that the Indian is in a different diverse environment that is not his own, he speaks a language that is not his and he also practices a culture that was forced upon him. Gamio says that there must be a fusion, especially when dealing with legislation at the forefront. This fusion must also focus on the native as the basis. According to Gamio, the process should be democratic as well, the legislation should be chosen by the population. That goes hand in hand with the definition of whiteness, defined in this week’s readings. The way the legislation reigns over all in Mexico to disenfranchise its citizens, is the same way it happens in the United States. It was the role of scientists trying to prove eugenics, which caused the laws to be passed in the early 1900s, which allowed for only Whites and African Natives to be included in the immigration laws. This, is what prompted the United States congress to crucially define what whiteness was, because in the beginning South Asians and others with lighter skin were considered white and could seek naturalization. This, which many laws were created from, to keep those “unfit” to enter the counter and keep those Europeans at the top of the hegemonic hierarchy. This set the basis for later conflicts because it standardized who the elites were.