Quote:
|
Quote by: rmnunez Think about this: Sovereigns must, under International Law, maintain and reiterate their claim to any territory occupied and usurped by another or forsake any rights to said territory;
Mexico does claim the territory seized in a void contract with infamous gringan captive Santa Ana purportedly ceding vast tracts of Mexican territory;
The Mexican government has failed to properly maintain and adequately reiterate its claim to the territory usurped and occupied by the gringoes, under International Law;
If Mexicans who regularly cross the border without benefit of passports or customs are seen as expressing continuous control and are deigned "representative" of the government of Mexico's views (imigration as political expression)
-then couldn´t the migrant Mexican´s genuinely representative government claim they've continuously and reiteratedly failed to recognize the existence of a border separating them from the coercively conveyed property through the customary conduct of that government's citizens? |
You seem to be particularly enamored of the term "gringo" so I will respond using the term "beaner". Of course, no offense is intended.
The beaner government has consistently encouraged the citizens that it deems "undesirable" to emigrate to the north. In doing so, it identifies and defines methods to avoid the legal restrictions (minor though they may be) imposed by the U.S. By identifying and offering ways to avoid these restrictions instead of declaring them as invalid, the beaner government has tacitly accepted them as sovereign regulations. If the beaner government had instead counseled it's north-bound detritus to directly challenge the legitimacy of U.S. immigration laws, they might have some legal standing.