Posted on 03/26/2006 4:39:05 PM PST by John Filson
Southern Californians protest nothing...usually. The lifestyle is as wide-open and apathetic as its sprawl of homes from the Mexican border north into Ventura County. I'm a native Angeleno, which means I was born in Los Angeles -- East Los Angeles to be exact, so don't bull me about being rooted somewhere else.
...
There are two main reasons I left Los Angeles in 1991: Rampant crime and the influx of illegal aliens from Mexico -- and those two reasons are connected statistics show. Now, on 25 March 2006, the illegal aliens took their stomp to the streets of Los Angeles with what seems to be a clear message: "We are here, we are illegal, and proud to be Mexican."
Anyone who disagrees is called a racist.
(Excerpt) Read more at thinkandask.com ...
Some would say "Hell", but that's another issue.
Indeed, Mexico is not Spain, but it's independent New Spain, just like USA is not England but the independent 13 colonies
Even in the case that the claims were valid, they were relinquished in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the borders of the United States are fixed in the Mississipi. Article 2
After the American Revolution, it was accepted that the land claims would only involve the lands between the Appalachia and the Mississipi River here when Mexico was created as a nation state and demanded the cession of lands and wealth on the part of Spain
New Spain was recognized as an Independent country in the Treaty of Cordoba in 1821, they changed their name afterwards to the "Mexican Empire". The colony of New Spain included the Northern Provinces of Alta California, Tejas y Nuevo Mexico and the Spanish Governors of those provinces pledged allegiance to the new governement, to think that there was no continuity between New Spain and Mexico is just foolish
Viva la Reconquista!! (Uber Puker)
Makes a big difference when you try to compare their situation to that of Mexico, and Mexico was not exactly "New Spain" ~ whole buncha' places fall under that name, and they all obtained independence at different times.
None of the former colonies, once it was recognized as an independent state, was required to respect ANY of the deals that may or may not have been agreed to by the Brits.
Use of the Misssissippi was under Spanish control. Don't read more into that than is really there.
he Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America,
Mexico is not exactly New Spain, but the "Mexican Empire had the same territory, before Central America got independent in 1824
I'm just pointing out that:
1.- Independent New Spain got renamed to Mexico, and they had possesion de facto and de jure of Alta California, Tejas and Nuevo Mejico
2.- Even if USA had a valid claim to California , something that only you seem to believe, they never used it, instead they tried to buy the land from Mexico from 1824 to 1845, accepting de facto that Mexico was the rightful owner, and when the war started in 1846, they used a latter claim of Texas
Look, whether or not the US needed to use pre-existing sea to sea claims to justify acquiring California, it does not follow that a failure to assert such claims meant they didn't exist. North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, as independent nation states, certainly acquired all rights they might have had previously with the Treaty of Paris.
You have to read it carefully ~ where it says UNITED STATES, that refers to a country that went out of existence upon the signining and ratification of the Treaty of Paris. It was resurrected with the Articles of Confederation.
Even as negotiations were underway the Buel family was preparing to betray Spanish interests to all of Florida.
I agree with you, when I said come here, I meant come here legally.
The claims didn't exist because even USA acted as if they were not valid, and even if the southern states had claims from sea to sea before the Treaty of Paris, they renounced to them in that Treaty, which fixed the borders And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands...
After that, the states would limit their claims to the Mississipi River, and that was the land they surrendered to the Federal Governement.
The treaty was a scam, cleverly negotiated by Ben Franklin to screw the Europeans, which, of course, it ultimately did.
Mexico didn't sign the treaty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.