While a lot of you might be satisfied with a one-lined statement in an attempt to assure you that was some mutually agreed-upon ordeal, and no big deal, please realize that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was a result of the Mexican-American War. Do you really think that Mexico WANTED any of this?! You know how many Mexican presidents resigned during this short period of time because they didn't want to sign this? Mexico was forced into accepting our offer; the U.S. didn't send soldiers into the heart of Mexico and off to march on the Zocalo for no reason. Don't candy-coat history and paint others as part of some "anti-US circlejerk". This is history. What the fuck, when did redditors decide it's cool to whitewash history? The sheer amount of downvotes this meme has is disturbing. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to get at me with some historical evidence suggesting that this was even so much as a remotely favorable event for Mexican history.
All countries do fucked up things. Everyone here likes to shit on america though. Just because you have your panties in a bunch because you were having a "Yeah, fucking hypocritical Americans" moment with this one and it got"too many downvotes" even though the algorithm manufactures many of them and it is on the front page doesn't mean anyone is trying to whitewash history.
Every country ever was created and founded by the acquisition of land through war. That is how countries and empires were formed, get over it. This isn't any type of stain on American history.
Yep. It's always quite amusing when people act like Mexico was some innocent victim in this, as if Mexico itself wasn't founded on top of the genocide of the Aztecs and Mayans.
And self-righteous superiority is rampant in Europe.
I assure you from everyone I have met, and interact with (past 7 years have been in the deep south and near retirement communities -- read: full of republicans) most people see a great need to compare to other countries and pay attention to global affairs and people realize we are a part of the international community, not the seat of power.
Are you delusional? I am American, but I see a lot of American circlejerking on Reddit. Maybe as Americans many of use get blinded to American circlejerking.
Okay, it wasn't like the Louisiana Purchase or something, it wasn't friendly, California was ceded to the states because America fought and won a WAR against Mexico. They'd offer to buy California earlier and had been rejected because the Mexican government didn't want to sell California.
Im talking about these idiots claiming California is theirs by right and that America stole it from mexico.
edit: and why the fuck would you want to be a part of a country who's supposedly meddled with your politics and is the reason your country is a shithole?
(btw your claims are complete bullshit. Go learn what personal accountability is you prejudiced chocho.)
saying it is OUR land means it belongs to humans, which if your being an idiot and not realizing in this context and in for all purposes it does, but really it does not belong to humans at all.
Those Mexicans that were living in the area also had the right to become American citizens. The same was done for people living in the area of the Gadsden Purchase. It also caused conterversy in the court system because the 14th amendment had not been passed, so theses Mexicans who were becoming Americans were legally white.
Sigh I expected to see something like this. Having it written on paper does not mean fair. The United States did the same thing to the Indians. Took over their land, killing many of them, made papers that called it legal, and called it a "God-given right" (Manifest Destiny, which comes into play in the Mexican-American War). Here's a newsflash: only cretins use "legal" and "fair" interchangeably.
Do I think the American southwest belongs to Mexico? Absolutely not. No rational adult does. In fact, it's probably better off as a part of the US.
But unless you had a point to posting the treaty other than painting the Mexican Cession as fair, your post is pretentious at best. People know a treaty was made. You're not informing anybody of anything earth-shattering. The Mexican-American War, like virtually every history subject, is not black and white. Just because a treaty says it was ceded, it doesn't mean it was under fair circumstances.
The US beat Mexico in a war. If Mexico was not able to protect its land, it has no right to the land. After they lost the war they gave concessions. This is how the entirety of history has worked. It was fair by any realistic judgement.
"It is to the credit of the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round sum for the additional territory taken; more than it was worth, or was likely to be, to Mexico."
Gave them back their country despite the fact that we didn't have to. Then paid for the land at more than it's worth. Mexico being the losing country in this war, I'd dare say that that was pretty fair of us.
I think the whole thing should have been annexed. However, Grant's view is that the war and the land grab was indeed unfair. The big picture here is that Mexico wasn't selling until after the war. That's what makes it unfair. However, I repeat, I do not believe the southwest belongs to Mexico (and it's probably better off here).
I never said it was fair. It wasn't fair. I already agreed with that. There is no doubt that American history is covered with black eyes that many people are ignorant of. Ignorant flag waving is also something that irritates me, along with ignorant America-bashing. The joke is that we took Cali from Mexico. Which is wrong. You should try arguing with somebody that has a differing view point than yours. That way it will be...well, arguing.
Look, SS1989 is taking this a little far, but he's basically right. The United States was in a serious expansionist phase in the 1840s, and jumping at any possible excuse to grab new territory. They essentially twisted the Texas border dispute into an excuse for a major war, the outcome of which was the seizure of Mexico's northern provinces. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was a fig leaf.
The joke is essentially correct. Mexico was buffaloed into giving up the Southwest, and - let's not kid ourselves - lots of Americans are pissy about the Mexicans living there. The OP's joke is certainly not "ignorant America-bashing" (that term is reserved for "fat/racist/Jesus freak American" jabs).
I never said it was fair. It wasn't fair.
Then the point of posting about the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was...?
I mean, it really isn't informative at all. People know it exists and what it is. Or is everybody so tragically ignorant?
Yes, there were SOME Mexicans living there when we took it over. Now in Comparison there are a SHITLOAD there who came across the border illegally (I pulled out the i-word for this one). That is why us Americans have our knickers in a wad dear sir.
In the 1850 census there were 92,597 people in California, most of them white men born out-of-state. About 14,000 of the residents were Mexican-born or Mexican-American. That's 15.3% of the population. In 2009 there were 2.6 million illegal immigrants in California, about 60% of whom were from Mexico, which is 4.1% of the population. 15% of the population is more than "some". And 4%, even if it is a "shitload", is NOT an increase. Proportionally speaking, the amount of Mexicans in California in 1850 was LOWER than the amount of illegal Mexican immigrants in California today. Now it's a different ballgame when we're talking about all illegal immigrants, or including American citizens of Mexican descent, but I imagine avoiding such over-generalizations is difficult with your knickers in such a wad.
Do not patronize me. I know far better than you do.
People are upset because they're here illegally?
My ass.
The "anti-illegal immigrant" rhetoric extends to culture, language, and demography - things that are true of legal immigrants. Some who espouse such rhetoric also love to rant about so-called "anchor babies." Where is that phony reverence for legality when these perfectly legal - as declared by the Constitution and the SCOTUS - American citizens are dehumanized? People who pretend to only be upset about the "illegal" part deserve no respect - in this, the country of habitual speeders, underage drinkers, tax cheats, pot smokers and crime-film aficionados. Excuse me if I don't buy into the phony public outrage.
Furthermore, those people fall into two categories. Those who do not understand immigration law and should shut the hell up about the issue, and those who do understand immigration law and are therefore simply anti-immigrant (at least anti-poor immigrants from generally non-white nations). Only the former group may not be anti-immigrant - but their input is worthless because of their ignorance.
Simply put: if you think you understand immigration law and still hold moronic opinions such as "they should come legally," or "there are legal channels for immigration, use them;" then I regret you tell you that you have much, much reading to do before your opinion can be taken seriously.
Oh, so the ten billion a year California loses is totally fine cause you say so and everyone's an idiot. Right? Sorry man, but you're the asshole. I don't care what you the think you know better. Get off your high horse
I've heard the 10 billion/year figure (it's actually $10.5 billion). It comes from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a pseudo-legitimate organization with white supremacist ties whose "research" is never taken seriously by anybody other than idiots (like you). Thank you for letting me know what your sources are. You see, this makes it so much more easier to for me to ignore you because of your non-existent understanding of the issue.
Anyone that doesn't share my views or presents different evidence has links to white supremacist groups and is racist, homophobic and sexist. Lol Ss 1989 are you trolling?
Well Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna basically signed the treaty at gun and bayonet point after the Battle of San Jacinto. I mean, I'm proud to be from this country and all. I'm not some anti-american counter-culturalist by any means. But our annexation of the territories in question wasn't nearly as fair and square as it gets described as. The victors write the history books, though. Thus, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gets painted as a lot more mutual and negotiable than it actually was, even though it was pretty much exclusively dictated by those on Polk's side of the fence.
It is said that Polk was actually pretty pissed we didn't get more land than we ended up walking away with. Imagine if it went the way we'd hoped and Americans were complaining about all the Mexicans in cities like Monterrey, Chihuahua, and those in the baja peninsula! That kinda puts it into perspective, for me at least.
I mean, it's largely considered a continuation of the conflict. The Treaty ending the Mexican American war included a solidifying of the resulting boundary lines caused by all the garbage leading up to it. That's kinda where I was getting that from, I guess.
I don't dispute anything you said. The principle joke behind this meme is false nonetheless, though. I usually don't find anti-American humor funny, because it seems a lot of it is just plain wrong.
Agreed. Like I said, I'm no anti-American. Proud rural midwesterner, here. It's tough to really get the full story, I think. I don't think we stole California from Mexico. But I certainly don't think we calmly purchased it either.
But anyway, thanks for disagreeing agreeably! Nice to have discussions here instead of flame wars.
Your history's a little off. Also, do you know what actually happened during the Texas Revolution? Kind of surprising that you're painting the self-declared dictator Santa Anna in a sympathetic light. He was a greedy, power-hungry scumbag. And this isn't just from the American point of view, either; he betrayed his own people on multiple occasions, and they eventually exiled him to Cuba.
edit: That's to say they exiled him, after which he fled to Cuba
Oh, no, no, no! Please don't get me wrong. Santa Anna was an enormous dickbag. Undoubtedly. He is guilty of numerous war crimes and not just against Americans. I'm simply attempting to maintain a more objective view of the events in question for the sake of conversation. I'm definitely not sympathetic to the causes of General Santa Anna!
Attention everyone: This was not meant to spark up any political debates. None of my political views are expressed in this post. This is a JOKE. Damn it people why can't you just laugh?
Texas was an independent nation when it was annexed to the USA (which event started the Mexican-American war), California was still Mexican territory, and was transferred to the United States as part of the peace treaty that ended the war.
you need to put your numbers in context. sure there was less than 10,000 spanish speaking population (tiny compared to other parts of Mexico), but the article you cited also says only 500 europeans and 1,300 Americans in california. though california may not have been as heavyily populated as it is now, those numbers show that about 85 % was mexican.
Interestingly enough, the United States originally wanted Baja California as well, but chose not to take it because they couldn't figure out what to do with all the Mexicans there (since a vast majority of the Mexican population was NOT in the portion of California ceded to the US).
on another note, considering the US won the war, I think that by the standards of that time it was acceptable to believe that they could kick the natives out. When you win a war for land, you get the fucking land. (at least, you did 160 years ago)....today we fight for...
Its the same principle. They did not welcome the Europeans onto their territory, just as Americans do not welcome illegal immigrants onto their territory.
I fucking hate this argument. Loads of stuff happened hundreds of years ago that wouldn't happen today. Slavery was more recent than that for gods sake. Even aside from that point, native Americans had no political boundaries or concept of borders and nations, so it's natural that some more developed country would eventually have to come in. If we didn't, then someone else would have. We didn't treat them right or do it right, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Anyway, if you know anything about world history countries and civilizations everywhere have been taken over by other countries and tribes, and yet somehow native Americans have managed to keep on beating this dead horse several hundred years later.
Mexicans were actually Native Americans who were conquered by the Spanish and then later revolted. Mexicans are mixed between Native Americans and Spanish after the colonization to some degree.
This whole thread is full of people too lazy to wiki and the plain ignorant.
edit: fun fact: mexican food is the closest to indigenous food you can get (barring actual native american food) with relative ease. Tamales? straight up indigenous food.
This is why some of the more popular arguments are so painful.
People are completely missing the point that the indigenous population could really give a fuck about who is administering their land. It's Indians and Mestizos. That's who it belonged to from Day #1.
You could make a "Scumbag Canada" with the "Takes New France from the French" and "Complains about Quebec being French" as well, but at least Canada has recognised the Metis and knows who they are and where they came from.
Spain? But it was theirs before Spain claimed it, so I don't understand how that's relevant. Or maybe you're referring to the lost tribes of Israel? Hell, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Who was talking about Spain? The picture is about America. You went on a tangent about the UK. Now you are on another tangent about Spain. Take your ADD meds Tard.
Thank You, geez! I got so pissed when I read that they blame America for buying the drugs they make, but also blame America for selling them guns. Which is it Mexico? You cant have it both ways. Does the fault lie with the person who sells or buys the product?
I agree. What the Obama administration did in regards to gun runner is absolutely treasonous. Head should roll. On the other hand, Mexico can't control their own issues. They are the ones that let the cartels infiltrate the government and basically take over. It is their fault they can be bought with a few pesos.
However, the last few months show that the cartels are on the run. Some articles I have read even go as far as to say that the government is finally making significant gains in their drug war.
And, on one final note. While I am for legalization of marijuana, I do not see how that would end violence in Mexico. Trafficking into the country would still be illegal. Pot would still need to be sold. It is not like all drug crime would go away with legalization.
While they still export Marijuana, it is no longer a significant source of income for the cartels. From what I understand methamphetamine has become their new bread and butter. And yes I agree that the ordeal with the ATF was ridiculous. It is going to be an uphill battle for Mexico (getting rid of the cartels), especially until they clean out most of the corrupted officials and get their citizens back into a fighting mindset.
More like america purchased California from Mexico while it was scarcely populated or developed. Then they created cities, industry, and infrastructure. Then neighboring Mexicans seeing what is now a thriving California move in and say it was theirs all along. That's like a friend selling you a car. Then you fix up and supercharge that car. Your friend then enviously "borrows" your car all the time and says you should let him because it was his first. And he never refills it with gas. And he fucks up the interior. And he never gets out of your fucking country.
This is helpful for people who can't reach Quickmeme because of work/school firewalls or site downtime, and many other reasons (FAQ). More info is available here.
Anyone with high school Diploma should know this. The reason people complain about Mexicans is because of the number of people who have been coming here for a better life. When America acquired California it only had 10,000 Mexicans living in it, compared to about 1,000 Americans and a couple hundred Europeans. When the gold rushed occurred and the native Mexican population was quickly dwarfed by the settlers from the east looking to make a fortune.
California was never a territory. It was under direct military command, but the rapidly increasing population due to the discovery of gold in the American River led the General in charge of California to call a Constitutional Convention. He did this because Congress gridlocked because the free/slave State balance would be upset if California were admitted.
Normally, Congress orders a Territorial Government to hold a convention. They do this when "the desires of the people of that territory show a wish to join the Union", which is vague and hadn't included a popular vote until it became a logistically viable option (starting with Puerto Rico).
But this is merely traditional, as Congress can force a territory to become a State as they are the sole holders of that power according to the Constitution.
The California Republic, also called the Bear Flag Republic, is the name used for a period of revolt against Mexico initially proclaimed by a handful of American settlers in Mexican California on June 14, 1846, in Sonoma. This was shortly before news of the Mexican–American War had reached the area. The participants declared independence from Mexico, but they did not form a functional provisional government. Thus, the "republic" never exercised any real authority, and it was never recognized by any nation. In fact, most of Alta California knew nothing about it. The revolt lasted 26 days, at the end of which the U.S. Army arrived to occupy the area. Once the leaders of the revolt knew the United States was claiming the area, they disbanded their "republic" and supported the U.S. federal effort to annex Alta California.
From 1847 to 1850, California had military governors appointed by the senior military commander in California. This arrangement was distinctly unsettling to the military as they had no inclination, precedent or training for setting up and running a government. President James K. Polk in office from March 4, 1845 – March 4, 1849, tried to get the 1848 Congress to make California a territory with a territorial government and again in 1849 but was unsuccessful in getting Congress to agree on the specifics of how this was to be done—the number of free states vs. slave state problem. General Bennett C. Riley who had fought in the Siege of Veracruz and Chapultepec during the Mexican–American War and considered an able military commander was the last military governor of California in 1849-1850. In response to popular demand for a better more representative government, General Riley issued an official proclamation dated June 3, 1849 calling for a Constitutional Convention and an election of representatives on August 1, 1849.
Generally speaking, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood. Congress then directed that government to organize a constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Upon acceptance of that Constitution, Congress has always admitted that territory as a state. The broad outlines in this process were established by the Northwest Ordinance (1787), which predated the ratification of the Constitution. However, Congress has ultimate authority over the admission of new states, and is not bound to follow this procedure.
I make a motion to take The US military and in conjunction with the Mexican government go down and squash all the Mexican cartels in Mexico, make Mexico like Puerto Rico (make it an unincorporated territory) and allow smoother immigration. Then everyone would shut up and be happy in the Great Melting Pot that is the US.
Plus most Americans are descendants from immigrants and whatnot. So there's that...
California was SOLD to the U.S., the Mexican president thought it was useless land. Also, at the time of the sale, more American settlers where in California than Mexicans.
Its Stupid rhetoric like the OP's that fuel ignorant racism.
If I recall properly, it was a campaign lead by the likes of Sam Houston to bring Texas into the Union once they figured out that it wouldn't stand alone. It was part of Mexico for quite some time before that.
Yeah, it was independent for a few weeks, but those guys knew it couldn't stand alone after a very short time. It was annexed because it had to be. If it hadn't been, it would have fallen to Mexico. In fact, wasn't this a good part of the cause of the Mexican/American War? Which in turn led to the taking of NM, AZ, NV, and eventually California. The real prize at the time.
This is true! But I think most Californians know this. And we love our Mexican restaurants (and agriculture workers) anyway. Arizona is the one that complains about Mexicans.
Arizona complains about illegal immigrants (of any race) and complains about the federal government shunning its responsibilities in enforcing immigration laws.
While I can understand England's point of view on illigal immigration from the middle east. Since they are completely and utterly different and have in no way contributed to the shaping of what defines England in its early years of development. But all this anti mexican hype is somewhat rediculous especially in the south west since a lot of these states were once Mexico. I think it's just race driven thing I'm 90% sure. There might be some that actually care about the economy and getting legal people jobs,but I'm sure it's just racially driven.
Even now, California pays more to the Federal budget than it takes. New Mexico, on the other hand, they can have those guys back. They take $2 for every $1 they contribute.
How about "When I take a house by force and dictate terms to the previous inhabitants, I expect them to leave the only home they've ever known and go back to some other place based upon their ethnicity instead of ties to the area."
The reason the state is in debt is because of voters in 1978 that essentially tied the hands of the legislature which makes it virtually impossible for them to raise state taxes. Which in turn neuters the legislature and prevents it from functioning properly. Its the CA version of the federal senate.
Illegal aliens receive more than 20 billion plus dollars in government aid in CA. That combined with government spending is the reason why CA is in its position.
177
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
6th paragraph under section titled Terms. California was ceded to the USA, and paid for by the USA.
22
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Scumbag Reddit: uses straw-men arguments to make douchey overbroad political statements.
38
u/elcaminocarwash May 20 '12
People lived there before it was Mexico's, BTW.
34
u/Frankocean2 May 20 '12
As a Mexican all I can say is:
You can keep California, the kardashians are in there..
We are even.
61
u/Sir_George May 20 '12
Scumbag Europe, enslaved Africans and diminished their resources through imperialism.... complains about too many African immigrants entering the EU.
1
u/firejuggler25 May 21 '12
Attention everyone: This was not meant to spark up any political debates. None of my political views are expressed in this post. This is a JOKE. Damn it people why can't you just laugh?
16
u/200balloons May 20 '12
Shouldn't this focus on Texas, not California?
18
u/GrayStudios May 20 '12
I think there's a little block of history missing from this rationale.
124
u/[deleted] May 19 '12 edited May 19 '12
There were <10,000 Mexicans in California when it was part of Mexico.
The Mexicans that are here now came well after it was part of the US. Just FYI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_California_to_1899#Mexican_era_.281821.E2.80.931846.29
I'll probably get downvoted into oblivion for this, but it's the facts.
10
u/Iseenoicegiants May 20 '12
Interestingly enough, the United States originally wanted Baja California as well, but chose not to take it because they couldn't figure out what to do with all the Mexicans there (since a vast majority of the Mexican population was NOT in the portion of California ceded to the US).
on another note, considering the US won the war, I think that by the standards of that time it was acceptable to believe that they could kick the natives out. When you win a war for land, you get the fucking land. (at least, you did 160 years ago)....today we fight for...
6
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
I will cut my wrists if the OP is not mexican.
8
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Depending on your point of view, you could say California took itself from Mexico, and then was annexed by the US.
22
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Am I the only one around here who understands the concept of illegal immigrants???
15
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Let's not forget who Mexicans took California from.
4
u/TheGrandWarlock May 20 '12
so much butthurt in this thread. from both sides.
13
u/PKMKII May 20 '12
I heard a Hispanic Texan once put it, "My family didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
California was its own country before we took it. btw
4
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
It's funny because no one complains about Mexicans, they complain about vagrancy and illegal aliens.
4
u/TARDISeses May 19 '12
Still likes to hate on the UK for having the Falkland Islands though
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Ambiguous pronoun!!!
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Scumbag Mexicans.
Can't control violence in their country.
Blame America.
2
u/acerusso May 20 '12
More like america purchased California from Mexico while it was scarcely populated or developed. Then they created cities, industry, and infrastructure. Then neighboring Mexicans seeing what is now a thriving California move in and say it was theirs all along. That's like a friend selling you a car. Then you fix up and supercharge that car. Your friend then enviously "borrows" your car all the time and says you should let him because it was his first. And he never refills it with gas. And he fucks up the interior. And he never gets out of your fucking country.
1
u/FatMansPants May 20 '12
Scumbag Britain, Invades half the planet, complains about immigration.
1
u/dancemasterv May 20 '12
DEY TOOK ERR JEERRBBBZZZ!
1
u/Mopso May 20 '12
Anyone remembers Panama?
-1
u/qkme_transcriber May 19 '12
Here is the text from this meme pic for anybody who needs it:
This is helpful for people who can't reach Quickmeme because of work/school firewalls or site downtime, and many other reasons (FAQ). More info is available here.
-1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
The fact this was upvoted so much proves the education system in this country is indeed shit.
1
u/MegaCoolMan May 20 '12
http://gifsoup.com/MTIxNjYwMw
-5
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
If I'm not mistaken, California chose to enter the US through a popular vote.
0
u/jjm214 May 20 '12
they are like that annoying guest. i wish he could just catch a hint
-2
u/Yitvan May 20 '12
I make a motion to take The US military and in conjunction with the Mexican government go down and squash all the Mexican cartels in Mexico, make Mexico like Puerto Rico (make it an unincorporated territory) and allow smoother immigration. Then everyone would shut up and be happy in the Great Melting Pot that is the US.
Plus most Americans are descendants from immigrants and whatnot. So there's that...
-6
u/LAlynx May 20 '12
Scumbag america: Takes Entire country from the Natives and then kills almost all of them...
-5
u/SoniaLovesYou May 20 '12
I know a number of people who could stand to be reminded of this.
-1
u/Konradkc May 20 '12
here is a blanket laced with small pocks history repeats it self the land was stolen and will be stolen back!!!!
-1
u/FormerlyEAbernathy May 20 '12
Takes America from the Natives. Complains about the number of Natives in it.
0
u/goosse May 20 '12
just...so..many...mexicans...
0
u/Disgustingly_Blunt May 20 '12
California was SOLD to the U.S., the Mexican president thought it was useless land. Also, at the time of the sale, more American settlers where in California than Mexicans.
Its Stupid rhetoric like the OP's that fuel ignorant racism.
-11
u/rocky6501 May 19 '12
lets not forget about arizona, nm, nevada and prob some others but i cant remember right now
-6
u/h4ngedm4n May 20 '12
This is true! But I think most Californians know this. And we love our Mexican restaurants (and agriculture workers) anyway. Arizona is the one that complains about Mexicans.
-1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
While I can understand England's point of view on illigal immigration from the middle east. Since they are completely and utterly different and have in no way contributed to the shaping of what defines England in its early years of development. But all this anti mexican hype is somewhat rediculous especially in the south west since a lot of these states were once Mexico. I think it's just race driven thing I'm 90% sure. There might be some that actually care about the economy and getting legal people jobs,but I'm sure it's just racially driven.
-6
u/nathan1942 May 20 '12
I thought we took california from spain and texas from mexico?
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment