You'll hear words and phrases like 'reconquista' and 'la raza' in this debate, a frequent piece of rhetoric is that the US 'stole' the southwestern United States from Mexico. The treaties signed 150 years ago would seem to indicate otherwise, namely that Mexico lost a war to the United States. What's your opinon?
2006-07-12 12:01:18 · 14 answers · asked by gokart121 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
No, they will tell you that the elected officials of the time had no authority to ratify treaties with the United States.
It's psychological warfare to get us too feel guilty and get defensive to allow them to get what they want.
1. There is such a soveriegnty as America.
2. There is such a person as an American Citizen.
3. There is such a valid ideal as American Citizens rights.
They will deny this, but of course will tell you that not only Mexico - but Aztlan - which never ever existed - can make these claims!!
It's common knowledge enough now that the Mexican army is firing on us on the border. While you will see Bush on TV supporting the wounded troops in Iraq, YOU WILL NEVER SEE HIM SUPPORT AMERICANS GETTING ATTACKED ON THE MEXICAN BORDER.
BUSH HAS DECLARED OPEN SEASON ON AMERICANS.
YOU KNOW WHAT I SAY THEY CAN DO WITH THE TREATIES IF THEY WANT TO BREAK THEM WHERE THEY CAN SHOVE THEM!!!
2006-07-12 16:12:11 · answer #1 · answered by yars232c 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California were areas that were once owned by Mexico. The Texas Mexican war and the US Mexican war took the land by force. So maybe in one since yes Mexico does have some kind of a legal claim to portions of the area there. However the USA would never recognize any claim. You don't need to worry though because as soon as the secret pages of NAFTA and GAT treaties are released it won't make any difference anyway because Mexico will be part of Unit #1 with the USA and Canada.
2016-03-27 03:01:41 · answer #2 · answered by Whitney 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Treaty of Guadeloupe de Hidalgo does a wonderful job of dilineating the boundary between the US and Mexico, and does a good job of lining the payments the US made for the territory.
However, sadly, you're using a logical argument. They don't listen to reason.
Personally, I think the lack of involvement on the side of the Mexican government to control it's own population should considered a violation of the treaty.
Maybe the threat of a major asskicking by the US would get Mexico to act in this crisis that is of their own making.
2006-07-12 12:10:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No lawful claim, but the legend of Atzlan is a great myth to discuss in an otherwise tedious and boring western American history class or Latin studies. The Mexican search for identity is very strong among the youth of the country as well as the western United States. Not to worry, the Mexican Army(mostly kids 18 years old) are busy at check points looking for undersized crusteceans, illegal exotic birds, and frat boy dope smokers.
2006-07-13 06:32:36 · answer #4 · answered by lpaganus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes the purchase was invalid .
1 illegal invasion of mexico all the way into mexico city.
2 the agreement was made under duress / At the point of a gun.
any world court will find the agreement null and void.
The same as them getting indians drunk and buying the east coast for a bag of beads.
American forces broke the law by starting the war in the first place!
2006-07-12 12:34:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as "reconquista" or legal claims in Mexico. Mexicans are taught in school that we lost the war and signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
"Reconquista" is an US product, it's created in the US and spreading in the US, that's not happening in Mexico and it wasn't "created" in Mexico. Several "reconquista" supporters are US citizens (but ethnically mestizos).
When you mention "reconquista" in Mexico, people think about europeans invading Mexico. That's about it.
2006-07-12 12:14:54 · answer #6 · answered by Oedipus Schmoedipus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a valid contract. Binding in any world court. The Japanese agreement to unconditional surrender was also made in duress, that does not mean that it is now null and void.
2006-07-12 12:44:50 · answer #7 · answered by joeandhisguitar 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well these people are wrong! It belongs to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA despite what these American-haters say.
Proud member of the Minutemen!
ARTHUR HAGLUND for President '08
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhU8nSNdeCnAhYV4HemoOZ7sy6IX?qid=20060708113758AAY6CAB
DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS!
ENGLISH ONLY IN AMERICA!
2006-07-12 12:11:15 · answer #8 · answered by Julie 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No claim, they signed they lost the war and signed the treaty. Now all they need to do is get over themselves.
2006-07-12 12:04:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They really should have Texas - it was kind of "tricked" out of Mexico IMO. But as far as west - it was purchased - but Texas is a whole different story.
2006-07-12 12:08:54 · answer #10 · answered by Joy M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋