Noticed you conveniently stuck “nationalist” in as an
adjective for Beccera. I am not going to defend a
libtard who may well be a Mexican nationalist. However,
I must have missed the part where you stated that there
are Mexican-Americans who disagree with Xavier Beccera
like there are black Americans who disagree with Barack
Obama. Or, is there something else at work?
Because the fraction of that hyphenated population which might be like that is vanishingly small as we say in mathematics.
Let's try a little gedanken experiment: we declare war on Mexico, and send in troops. How many of them will be on our side?
See? It's really easy to discern loyalty and thus nationality. You already knew the answer before I asked the question.
PS: one of my long gone relatives died in Mexico fighting the war we had with them in 1846-48. He was a Tennessee volunteer (that's where the phrase came from) and was an officer who led a company. My G-uncle was with Pershing in Deming when they went after Villa in 1916. Which side of those two little conflicts do you think Becerra/Padilla/Rendon/DeLeon are on? I can safely tell you which side my family was.
As far as adjectives, here's a list:
Mexican Hegemonist -> too big of a word, most people have no idea what it means
Mexican Supremacist -> Not bad, accurate but possibly too inflammatory
Mexican Separatist -> Also accurate, definitely describes La Raza Unida / MEChA / Brown Berets de Aztlan but doesn't imply motive
Mexican Nationalist -> Pretty much sums it up. They believe in Mexico as a nation and identify with it.
Becerra is in no way a classical liberal. Any man who descends from the people who inflicted the Encomienda, Debt peonage, the Napoleonic code, and outright slavery to this day has nothing to say to us about ideas of the Enlightenment. These atavistic troglodytes are in league with the Moslems in wanting to take us back 500 years. Why in God's name would anyone turn to them to build a society of the future? They couldn't even make a society of the past work.