How would you respond to this argument?

Question

Let's say someone tells you that much of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas used to be Spanish and later Mexican property, until the US government seized it. Since it was the ancestral homeland of Mexicans for hundreds of years, they have just as much right to live there as Americans, who only obtained it recently through military force.

My question is: how would you respond to someone making such an argument? I am looking for serious, logical answers only. I don't want to hear any snappy remarks like "it was hundreds of years ago so get over it". Please tell me how to respond to this argument intellectually.

Answer 1

There is not logical answer because the question is not logical itself. The US gained those states or territories (then) by Mexico signing them over to us in a treaty. You cannot look at it just from the part of Mexico. Several countries have fought war and either gained or lost land. War is war and the result cannot be changed. If we started giving land away to country's that thought they lost land in an incorrect manner a lot of countries would be in big trouble. Don't call us a bad guy when if you look at the past of the British and other powerful nations.

Answer 2

The area became a part of the United States after the Mexican War. We penetrated Mexico clear to Mexico city and could have taken the whole country. The only part we purchased was the Gadsden Purchase a portion of southern New Mexico and Arizona. All of Texas was a part of Mexico but the United States did not take that from Mexico. That was won in the Texas Rebellion when Texas became an independent nation. It was later annexed to the United States at the Texan's request. Much of southern Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California were already controlled by Americans. Most of the ownership by Mexicans of old Spanish Land Grants were honored by the United States Government. Those people already in possession of the land were granted citizenship in the US. Those people do have the right to live there. They did not enter illegally. None of this justifies people from south of the border entering here illegally nor does it grant them access to our services, education, and other amenities. And it sure does not allow them to run drugs, kill people, and fill our jails with a criminal element.

Answer 3

I think your Civil War was caused by the last straw of the Southern states breaking away from the union. So I do not think New Mexico can. However one point the joining of the United States was not voluntary it was signed by a man who was captive and under duress. I do not think that under the English/American System of law that this is a legitimate deal an so morally New Mexico has a right to break away.
I think if they try the "whipped ****" argument will be used by many US citizens. If this argument is going to be used I have a little niggle as to why did the US worked so hard against the European Colonial powers after WW!I. who had previously "Whipped Arses" it suggests one law for US and one for the rest of the world. To conclude I think that US would take a very dim view of any State trying to leave the Union. It would be interesting to us bye-standers. With respect to the USA (I am most definitely not anti-American" you are at the moment the most powerful nation the world has ever known but "like all Earths proud Empires (you) will pass away," At Vietnam it was proved that US is not invincible albeit at great cost in lives and treasure. That is the start of your fading away. I do not know what will replace US There is no guarantee that it will be better and it will probably be worse

Answer 4

I would tell them their argument is made on a false premise, the US did not seize the Southwest territory, it was ceded to them by Mexico, in return for us not taking over their entire country.

Also, I would add that Mexico did not exist until 1821when it ended its revolutionary war with Spain.

The Mexican-American war ending in 1848, giving America the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México were ceded to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Also FYI Mexico was around but 27 years at this point.

Answer 5

Before it was the Spanish, it was the Comanches, Apaches, Navajos, etc.
Let's say my family owned the land where your house sits several generations ago. Does that give me the right to come to you and say "Move out, I'm reclaiming the land my great-great-grandfather sold 150 years ago."
That would be a ludicrous claim, just as the claim of the Mexicans is ludicrous. Mexico sold the lands to the US. The US was in the position of just taking the lands and could have taken much more. Instead, they withdrew from the brink of Mexico City and ended the war. Unless Mexico is prepared to re-open hostilities, the land belongs only to the US. In the unlikely event, Mexico did decide to open hostilities, in the end they would fail dismally and the land would still belong to the US.

Answer 6

If you're going to argue the point that just because we seized it through a "military takeover" a few hundred years ago, it isn't ours, then you can say that about most countries today. Look at Israel, they've been fighting for their land for centuries and only finally go back their country a few years ago.
The way i see it though, is the border between the US and Mexico is drawn and you can't suddenly buckle and say, "ok you're right. It was yours...come on in!" What is the fundamental difference between that land and ours anyway? not the dirt or the area, but the gov't that runs it.
It's isn't about where it is, but who owns it.

Answer 7

It is hard to respond to that intellectually as it is not a very intellectual argument. The Republic of Texas was only in Mexican control for a period of years, not centuries. The Republic split from Mexico after the Mexican President threw out their Constitution and tried to gain power for himself. This was after he had invited settlers to move to Texas with the promise that they could have some degree of self rule. After Santa Anna threw out the constitution he amassed his Army and attacked the Republic, AGAINST the advice of Europe and his own Generals.

In the end Mexico lost the war for Texas. As part of the peace AGREEMENT, Texas was allowed to break away from Mexico, and the US paid Mexico a fee of fifteen million dollars (quite a bit for back then). The US later BOUGHT what is now California for a separate fee of ten million dollars. Mexico even tried to throw in the Baja Peninsula, but we said we didn't need it.

That is how those territories became part of the US. When their residents, many of them people from Mexico, fought to be free of that country, and the territories were exchanged through diplomatic agreements, with the CONSENT of Mexico

Answer 8

Hate to flatten your argument:

The US paid money for the land. Was it the amount it was worth? Probably not. But that is the fault of the sellers - not the buyers.

Now - with that being said, it is bordered and mapped as property of the United States of America. The US government pays for the land, collects taxes from those that live there, and protects the residents that are there with their military power. As long as that is the case, then your argument is moot.

And if you contend that this is actually wrong, and that Mexico should get their land back, then I think all you should leave - I am Native American, and the entire nation was taken from my ancestors. So you can argue whatever you like, but it isn't going to do anything to change the fact that illegal immigration is illegal. THAT is the issue.

Answer 9

Possession is nine-tenths of the law and how we came to possess it is irrelevant. The real question is whether the law is what this is about. I have a table with extra places and so much food I throw some out every day. My neighbor is hungry through no fault of his own. Do I believe he's a human being, a child of God, and allow him to share at my table? It's the American way but some people want to change all that. The whole "love thy neighbor" thing has gotten inconvenient.

Answer 10

You should use correct terms if you are going to discuss the history of this continent.

As a First Nations - U.S. native American indian, perhaps I can enlighten you.

The hispanics who arrived on this continent from europe stole our native lands, this land used to be the lands of the U.S. native American indian tribes of the First Nations, not to the Spanish.
The land was stolen by the spanish.
Mexico then stole our lands after the hispanic/europeans pulled their rule out of the North American continent (which was not previously called Mexico, but rather Nueva Espania, or New Spain).
There was no such nation of Mexico before the hispanics arrived and stole lands in North America.

The lands of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas were not "seized" by the USA, the USA paid for it and won it.
In truth much of Texas was, at one time claimed by France, and there had been a great number of Russian settlers in California long before any of the hispanics built missions and moved in to steal the native California indian lands. This is well documented.

The land of the US southwest was NOT the "ancestral homeland of Mexicans for hundreds of years". Where did you ever get that idea. The lands you speak of were not homelands to any Mexicans. The only tribes which had homelands on any of the US southwest lands were the U.S.native American tribes, none of which were ever Mexican, none of which were ever aztec, none of which were ever mayan, none of which were ever latino, or hispanic, or meztiso.
There has never been any tribe indigenous to the land which is the USA called "mexican" or any variation of mexican, or aztec, or any variation of aztec.

Mexican indians are not indigenous to the land of the USA, they are indigenous to the land south of the existing border today.
There are no tribes recorded as "native" to the land of the USA called Mexican or aztec or mayan. Those tribes are native to Mexico.

After Mexico stole the lands of our U.S. First Nations tribes, they only held it for a few unimportant years, and during those years few mexicans or meztiso ever moved north into the land which is now California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas.

The states of the US southwest have been part of the United States for hundreds of years, and they will remain so.

Mexico has no claim on any inch of US lands. It never rightfully belonged to them in the first place, it does not now, it never will.
Mexicans have no "right" to live on US lands, based on anything which happened in history, it was not their land to begin with, they are not indigenous to this nation.