Thread: NYT: Mexico Owns California and Texas, Will Trade For Amnesty

Mexican historian: Trump needs to give all illegals citizenship or give up Texas & desert southwest

Chris Enloe Apr 10, 2017 12:22 pm


23rd February 1847: American army general Zachary Taylor (1784 - 1850), directing his troops at the Battle of Buena Vista in Northern Mexico during the Mexican-American war. A Mexican historian now claims that Donald Trump should grant citizenship to all illegal immigrants as reparations for damages caused by that war. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

A Mexican man who claims to be a historian recently wrote in the New York Times that his country maintains a claim to the land taken during the 19th century Mexican-American war and now it’s time for President Donald Trump to pay up.

Following the end of the war in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave the U.S. the territories of California and Texas, as well as parts of Arizona and New Mexico. But according Enrique Krauze, Mexico is owed those territories from its “unjust lost,” which Trump has rehashed.

“The United States invasion of Mexico in 1846 inflicted a painful wound that, in the 170 years that followed, turned into a scar. Donald Trump has torn it open again,” Krauze wrote.

“Among the many lies that he has constructed, none is more ridiculous than his attempt to contradict history by presenting the United States as a victim of Mexico, a country that supposedly steals jobs, imposes onerous treaties and sends its ‘bad hombres’ across the border,” he explained.

To fix the “fake history,” Krauze wrote that many Mexicans are pressuring their government to sue the U.S. over claims that the territories taken in the mid-19th century still belong to Mexico.

However, Krauze conceded that after speaking to a lawyer, it would be a long shot given that Mexico barely has any legal grounds to claim the land is still theirs more than 150 years after the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty was signed.

But the public impact of such a lawsuit could certainly hurt Trump, Krauze said.

“[The] initiative may have little chance of succeeding legally, but its public impact could be considerable at a time when Mexico is being attacked unjustly by President Trump,” he wrote.

“For us Mexicans, this is the chance for a kind of reconquest,” Krauze explained. “We need a reconquest of the memory of that war so prodigal in atrocities inspired by racial prejudices and greed for territorial gain.”

His suggestion: “Open the road to citizenship for the descendants of those Mexicans who suffered the unjust loss of half their territory.”

According to Krauze, immigration reform via amnesty would be the “best and most just reparation.” It is not clear how providing Mexican citizens with a path to United States citizenship would in any way compensate the country of Mexico for the territory allegedly lost, however.



http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04...ert-southwest/

LOL!!! The ultimate snowflakes. They lose a war, they sign a treaty, they take the money ... and still they won't admit they lost.

From Wikipedia, Saint Patrick's Battalion

"The Saint Patrick's Battalion (Spanish: Batallón de San Patricio), formed and led by John Riley, was a unit of 175 to several hundred immigrants (accounts vary) and expatriates of European descent who fought as part of the Mexican Army against the United States in the Mexican–American War of 1846–8. Most of the battalion's members had deserted or defected from the United States Army. The Battalion served as an artillery unit for much of the war. Despite later being formally designated as two infantry companies, it still retained artillery pieces throughout the conflict. In many ways, the battalion acted as the sole Mexican counterbalance to the recent U.S. innovation of horse artillery. The "San Patricios" were responsible for the toughest battles encountered by the United States in its invasion of Mexico, with Ulysses S. Grant remarking that "Churubusco proved to be about the severest battle fought in the valley of Mexico".[1]

Composed primarily of Catholic Irish and German immigrants, the battalion also included Canadians, English, French, Italians, Poles, Scots, Spaniards, Swiss, and Mexican people, many of whom were members of the Catholic Church.[2] Disenfranchised Americans were in the ranks, including escaped slaves from the Southern United States.[3] Only a few members of the Saint Patrick's Battalion were actual U.S. citizens. The Mexican government printed propaganda in different languages to entice immigrants in the U.S. army to switch sides and offered incentives to foreigners who would enlist in its army including; granting them citizenship, paying higher wages than the U.S. Army and the offer of generous land grants.[citation needed]

The San Patricios are revered and honoured in Mexico and Ireland. Members of the Battalion are known to have deserted from U.S. Army regiments including; the 1st Artillery, the 2nd Artillery, the 3rd Artillery, the 4th Artillery, the 2nd Dragoons, the 2nd Infantry, the 3rd Infantry, the 4th Infantry, the 5th Infantry, the 6th Infantry, the 7th Infantry and the 8th Infantry.[4]"

I never knew that! Why do we have a Saint Patrick's Day?

I never knew that either and believe me in Texas, in my day, you studied a lot of Texas history and history of the SW.

Seems our history has a lot of blank places doesn't it.

Now, let's really be real about this, Texas and much of the SW was actually taken by the US. It was taken much as it is being retaken. I believe it was a planned campaign.

The US government encouraged settlers to go to Texas, some connected people led many settlers into Texas and established towns, etc. Mexico welcomed them. (sound familiar) Years later, when the settlers became many, we are led to believe suddenly Mexico became just bloody tyrants and those settlers couldn't take it anymore and just had to revolt

The US government promised Texas it would protect it from Mexico if we would become a state. They didn't.

That comes under the heading of 'Things ain't changed all that much.' They still aren't protecting us.

I don't think this take over will be bloody, I think it will just be quietly moving into places of power and influence and running the state.

So history is sort of repeating itself here in Texas and the SW and the US government is, once again, supporting and aiding and abetting it.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I never knew that either and believe me in Texas, in my day, you studied a lot of Texas history and history of the SW.

Seems our history has a lot of blank places doesn't it.

Now, let's really be real about this, Texas and much of the SW was actually taken by the US. It was taken much as it is being retaken. I believe it was a planned campaign.

The US government encouraged settlers to go to Texas, some connected people led many settlers into Texas and established towns, etc. Mexico welcomed them. (sound familiar) Years later, when the settlers became many, we are led to believe suddenly Mexico became just bloody tyrants and those settlers couldn't take it anymore and just had to revolt

The US government promised Texas it would protect it from Mexico if we would become a state. They didn't.

That comes under the heading of 'Things ain't changed all that much.' They still aren't protecting us.

I don't think this take over will be bloody, I think it will just be quietly moving into places of power and influence and running the state.

So history is sort of repeating itself here in Texas and the SW and the US government is, once again, supporting and aiding and abetting it.

I also went to school in Texas. Mexico invited the US settlers with the requirement that they become Mexican citizens which they did. Then the government changed from the Federalists to the Centralist Party and new laws were issued that punished the American/Mexican settlers and the government began exerting more control.

Regardless, Mexico lost. In fact, they lost twice. I am not inclined to give them a do over through illegal immigration and birthright citizenship now that the country has been developed. JMO

No, when you lose a war to the United States, there is no "do over". It's finished. Unless you want to fight another one. Ask Germany how well that worked for them.