...general actually sold it to USA,for very? cheap,granted.But we are better of without it.we would only have MORE poverty and that land that USA has made prosperous would just be overcrowded and going to waste....sorry,that is the way it is!What do you think?
Actually, the land though it was "purchased" it was for a song. Santana was forced to sell on American terms as he has lost his war with the Americans.
Given that the land had been lost in war, it was rather astute that the Gringo's made a sale kinda deal part of the treaty.
Your own call ...is a deal a deal? When you lose in a war and you are forced to accept a sale? Frankly, I think the Mexicans were lucky to get what they got.
If they want their land back and we are foolish enought to simply give it back to them by allowing illegal migration ...America has no one to blame but themselves.
Yes, the Mexicano's are a pain in the tortilla but it's simply NOT their fault.
If Americans want justice on this matter ...we need to go to the leaders of our land and if need be physically DEMAND our rights and property be protected. That apparently is ALL they understand. The Blacks burned Watts and got Affirmative Action, The Mexicans rioted in the streets and had the "A day without a Mexican" and are about to get AMNESTY.
If Americans want somethings, we better take to the streets in droves and raise a little cain, othewise this issue will go to those that squeak the loudest.
All land back to the date man first set foot on the planet has been the subject of war. Land has changed hands and continues to change hands. I don't really care what Mexicans think about the Southeast. The United States has had established borders for several hundred years, and will for centuries to come.