What's up with the Treaty of Hildago-Guadalupe?

Question

The Treaty defined the exact MX/USA border. It gives MEXICAN CITIZENS SPECIAL RIGHTS in USA. Some Americans want immigration to stop. That treaty was never ratified by Mexico. Mexico can ratifuy it anytime they see fit. America did ratifify it. If America tries to build a fence Mexico will hold them to the border in the treaty. If America follows the treaty's border they will have consumated the treaty. Then nothing will stop the immigration. MX has the US by the short hairs. Mexico plans to reclaim the land they believe was stolen from them. Nothing is going to stop them. If someone tries you will understand the United Nations reason for existing better.

Answer 1

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo specifically stated that it is the responsibility for the nation of Mexico to keep Mexican citizens on the Mexican side of the border, that Mexicans are not allowed to cross the border at will.
Maybe the USA should hold Mexico in contempt for violation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, seeing as how Mexico has failed to keep it's citizens on their own side of the border?
Maybe the world court should sanction Mexico for failure to comply with the rules outlined by the treaty, since Mexico took the money and ran?

The ONLY Mexicans who were given what you consider to be a "right" were the handful of Mexicans who lived in the Texas/eastern Arizona lands, AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE TREATY, who were given the right to stay north of the border and retained ownership of any privately owned land, which they OWNED AT THAT TIME.
They had ONE YEAR and only one year to decide if they would become a citizen of the United States, and renounce their Mexican citizenship, if they decided to keep their Mexican citizenship, they would be deported and any property they owned would be forfeited.

NO Mexican alive today was alive at the time of the signing of the treaty.
NO Mexican is allowed to cross the border illegally.
NO Mexican alive today has any so-called "rights" from the treaty.

Think you got that?
Try reading the treaty, you might learn something.

Answer 2

The United States may also choose to repeal their ratification at any time, or simply ignore anything that treaty says.

The United States could indeed build a border fence on their own land if the government chooses to do so; nothing Mexico says could change that.

Similarly, Mexico could build a border fence and nothing we say could change that.

In short, I wouldn't even bother thinking about Hidalgo-Guadalupe except as a piece of history. Other than that, it is pretty much meaningless.

Answer 3

Even if they reclaim the southwest or pennsylvania it will look like the crappy place they came from in five years or less. The US military should use the wasteland of mececo as a bombing range which will be a big improvement for the mexicans who have sneaked into the US. they can then go back home and build a great land like the anglos did.

Answer 4

That treaty was with the interim government of mexico 2 centuries ago. That government no longer exists. (Laughing at this one....Quite a reach)

Answer 5

Please read the treaty.

It only gave 'rights' to Mexicans who were on what became US soil. They had one year to decide whether to become Americans or to stay Mexicans and got to keep their property or the proceeds from their property. That one year was over a hundred fifty years ago and those people have been Americans or Mexicans ever since.

It gave no rights to Mexicans who didn't live in what became US territory.

Answer 6

In November 1835, the northern part of the Mexican state of Coahuila-Tejas declared itself in revolt against Mexico's new centralist government headed by President Antonio López de Santa Anna. By February 1836, Texans declared their territory to be independent and that its border extended to the Rio Grande rather than the Rio Nueces that Mexicans recognized as the dividing line. Although the Texans proclaimed themselves citizens of the Independent Republic of Texas on April 21, 1836 following their victory over the Mexicans at the Battle of San Jacinto, Mexicans continued to consider Tejas a rebellious province that they would reconquer someday.

In December 1845, the U.S. Congress voted to annex the Texas Republic and soon sent troops led by General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande (regarded by Mexicans as their territory) to protect its border with Mexico. The inevitable clashes between Mexican troops and U.S. forces provided the rationale for a Congressional declaration of war on May 13, 1846.

Hostilities continued for the next two years as General Taylor led his troops through to Monterrey, and General Stephen Kearny and his men went to New Mexico, Chihuahua, and California. But it was General Winfield Scott and his army that delivered the decisive blows as they marched from Veracruz to Puebla and finally captured Mexico City itself in August 1847.

Mexican officials and Nicholas Trist, President Polk's representative, began discussions for a peace treaty that August. On February 2, 1848 the Treaty was signed in Guadalupe Hidalgo, a city north of the capital where the Mexican government had fled as U.S. troops advanced. Its provisions called for Mexico to cede 55% of its territory (present-day Arizona, California, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado, Nevada and Utah) in exchange for fifteen million dollars in compensation for war-related damage to Mexican property.

Other provisions stipulated the Texas border at the Rio Grande (Article V), protection for the property and civil rights of Mexican nationals living within the new border (Articles VIII and IX), U.S. promise to police its side of the border (Article XI), and compulsory arbitration of future disputes between the two countries (Article XXI). When the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in March, it deleted Article X guaranteeing the protection of Mexican land grants. Following the Senate's ratification of the treaty, U.S. troops left Mexico City.

So no, It no longer gives them rights.

Answer 7

extra new territories the place the North demanded not extra slave states be entered into the Union jointly as the South needed the enlargement of slavery into the territories that "they" (most of the warriors have been southern) had bled for.

Answer 8

Dar's got my vote for 10 points

Answer 9

Thanks DAR. It's funnt how this got spun here, huh? Thanks for clearing it up!

Answer 10

all legal